list_text_fonts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the enumeration scope well: bitmap sprite-sheet fonts, .ttf/.otf under ~/.aseprite-mcp/fonts, and system TrueType directories. It also explains that `size` scales bitmap glyphs by whole numbers. It stops short of describing the return shape (names vs. paths vs. families), which is a gap given no output schema exists.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scoping detail and a useful selection tip. Slightly longer than strictly necessary for a list tool, but every sentence adds information.

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?

For a 0-param listing tool with no annotations or output schema, the definition covers the key question (what gets enumerated) plus a practical hint on font type for pixel art. The main omission is what the returned list actually contains.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The `size` reference pertains to draw_text, not this tool, but no parameter meaning is missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List fonts that draw_text can use") and ties the tool to its consumer, draw_text, so an agent immediately understands its role in the workflow. No sibling offers font enumeration, so the scope is unambiguous.

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 gives selection guidance ("Bitmap fonts are the right choice for pixel art") which helps an agent advise the user, but it never states when to invoke this tool or what the alternative is. Usage is only implied via the draw_text relationship.

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