Ase Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does so thoroughly: it defines success criteria, mentions caching, explains the gating role for other tools, states that unavailable tools report {available:false,...} instead of crashing, and details extra output about probed locations when the executable is missing. This is far beyond the minimum.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the main purpose and criteria, then adds caching and gating context, and finishes with a useful troubleshooting detail about probed locations. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and a straightforward check operation, the description is complete. It covers what availability means, how results behave, how other tools use it, and what the output contains in the failure case. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and how to interpret its result.

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?

Zero parameters are present, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The schema coverage is 100% for an empty argument object, making parameter documentation unnecessary. The baseline of 4 applies because the tool simply needs no inputs.

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 tool checks whether the headless Aseprite CLI is available, with concrete success criteria: executable present and a probe batch run succeeds. It names a specific resource (Aseprite CLI) and distinguishes itself from sibling status tools like rd_status and krita_status by tying it to the ase_* family.

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 explains the key usage context: file-touching ase_* tools gate on this status check and use its result to avoid crashing. It also notes the 60-second cache, which implies when an agent can rely on it without recalling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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