ase_export_spritesheetExport spritesheets in horizontal, vertical, rows, columns, or packed layouts, optionally including JSON metadata.
Export a spritesheet (horizontal|vertical|rows|columns|packed) with optional JSON metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layout | No | horizontal | |
| padding | No | ||
| output_path | Yes | ||
| sprite_path | Yes | ||
| include_json | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the export overwrites existing files, whether the output is created in the filesystem, or what the JSON metadata includes. It also does not state any side effects or dependencies as the ase_export_sprite sibling appears to handle single-sprite exports.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and layout options. It does not waste words, though it could be richer with behavioral details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple layout modes, optional JSON), the description is incomplete. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the lack of usage guidance, behavioral disclosure, and parameter semantics leaves agents underinformed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. The layout options (horizontal, vertical, etc.) are listed, but not defined. The schema parameters like 'include_json' and 'padding' have no additional meaning beyond their names. For a tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('spritesheet') with layout options and optional JSON metadata, which clearly distinguishes it from similar tools like ase_export_layers and ase_export_tag. It does not name siblings explicitly, but the resource and options make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the sprite being open, or when to prefer ase_export_sprite or ase_export_layers. The layout options are listed, but not explained in terms of use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.