Ase Sprite Info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'metadata' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is side-effect-free, what happens if the sprite_path is invalid, or whether the path refers to an open document or a file on disk. This is a significant gap for an info tool.

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 short, front-loaded, and every listed item carries meaning. There is no fluff. It loses one point because it is a noun-phrase fragment without a verb, which slightly hurts readability and flow.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description still fails to explain the key operational context: how to reference the sprite, whether the sprite must be currently loaded in Aseprite, and what state the tool depends on. Given a single parameter and zero annotations, the description is not sufficient for safe, 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 provides no elaboration on sprite_path. The agent cannot tell whether the parameter is a file path, a sprite name, an in-memory sprite identifier, or something else. The description adds zero value beyond the schema's bare type.

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 identifies the resource ('sprite') and enumerates the exact metadata returned: dimensions, color mode, frames, layers, tags. This makes the tool's purpose clear, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling read-tools like ase_get_pixels or ase_get_tile_at, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the sprite must be open), and no exclusions or alternatives. The agent is left to infer the use case from the metadata list alone.

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