ase_view_frameRender a specific sprite frame as a PNG image to inspect its current state. Specify sprite path, frame, and layer for targeted viewing.
Render one cel of a sprite to PNG and return it as MCP image content so the caller can SEE the current sprite state (layer defaults to first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frame | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| max_side | No | ||
| as_base64 | No | ||
| sprite_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the result is PNG/MCP image content and that layer defaults to first, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens with frame selection, or how as_base64 or max_side affect the output.
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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant or filler wording. Every phrase adds useful context about output format or default behavior.
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?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description omits several parameter behaviors. It tells the agent the output is MCP image content, but does not explain important options like as_base64, max_side resizing, or frame defaults, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke the tool with confidence.
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 only explains the layer default; frame, max_side, as_base64, and even sprite_path semantics are left undocumented. This is a significant gap for a tool with five parameters and no property descriptions in the schema.
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 ('Render'), a specific resource ('one cel of a sprite'), and the delivery format ('PNG ... as MCP image content'). It also clarifies the default layer behavior, which helps distinguish it from export-related siblings like ase_export_sprite and ase_export_spritesheet.
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 phrase 'so the caller can SEE the current sprite state' implies the tool is for visual inspection, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Among many ase_* siblings, the description does not name alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over an export or pixel-read tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.