Ase Scale Sprite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the algorithm choices, which hints at resampling behavior, but it does not disclose whether this operation mutates the sprite in place, whether it is destructive, whether scale values are multipliers or pixel dimensions, or how alpha/frame data is treated. This is a significant gap for an operation that likely alters the source file.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded, which is good for scanning, but it may be under-specified rather than properly concise. Every word earns its place, yet meaningful behavior and parameter semantics are absent. It is efficient as a terse summary, but not adequately informative.

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 potential to mutate sprite data, the absence of annotations, and zero schema description coverage, the description is far from complete. There is no explanation of what the output schema contains, how the scale factors are interpreted, or whether the operation is reversible. For a 4-parameter tool with no annotation support, this is inadequate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning to the 'algorithm' parameter by listing the allowed values, but it offers no explanation of scale_x/scale_y semantics (are they factors, percentages, target sizes?) or what sprite_path refers to beyond the obvious. The description barely enriches the bare schema parameter names.

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 ('Scale'), a precise resource ('the whole sprite'), and the algorithm options ('nearest|bilinear'). This clearly distinguishes it from related sibling tools like ase_resize_canvas or ase_resize_canvas that target the canvas rather than the sprite content, and from ase_flip_sprite/ase_rotate_sprite which perform different transforms. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool over alternatives such as ase_resize_canvas (canvas vs sprite scaling) or ase_downsample (which likely reduces the sprite similarly). No context about intended use cases or prerequisites (e.g., whether scaling replaces existing frames or resamples them) is given. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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