Ase List Slices

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states what it lists but does not disclose any side effects (likely none), whether it requires an existing sprite or modifies anything, or what happens if the sprite path is invalid. It does not contradict any annotations (since none exist), but it falls short of providing behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and the key output attributes. It has no fluff, but it could benefit from a brief note about the parameter or usage. Overall, it is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The output schema exists (though not detailed in the prompt), so the description does not need to explain return values. The tool is relatively simple with one parameter, but the lack of behavioral context and parameter semantics leaves gaps. Given the information available, it is adequate but not comprehensive, earning a 3.

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 schema only defines sprite_path as a string with no description. The tool description does not clarify what sprite_path means (e.g., file path vs. sprite identifier) or provide any format expectations. It does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's meaning from the tool name and context.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all slices', and mentions the key attributes (bounds, 9-patch centers, pivots). It is specific enough to distinguish from related slice operations (e.g., ase_create_slice, ase_delete_slice) because it is the only one focused on listing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 'list' tools in the sibling set (e.g., ase_list_palette_presets), but the context makes it clear enough.

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 implies usage: call this tool when you need to retrieve slice information for a sprite. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., ase_sprite_info to get general sprite info), nor when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites like needing an open sprite or valid path. With only one parameter, the guidance is minimal but somewhat inherent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.