outline_native

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions it is a 'Native Aseprite Outline' and modifies the file, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the operation is undoable, if it affects other layers, or required permissions). Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise and well-structured: a summary sentence, quality comparison, best-use note, and a clear parameter list. No redundant information; all sentences earn their place.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage hint, and parameter meanings. It lacks details on return values or error conditions, but for a file-modification tool this is acceptable. Almost complete.

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 parameter list in the description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. Each parameter is explained (e.g., 'color: outline colour as #RRGGBB', 'place: "outside" or "inside"'), covering all 6 parameters. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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's purpose: 'Native Aseprite Outline around opaque pixels (app.command.Outline).' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'outline_cel' by noting higher quality and additional options (inside/outside placement + circle/square brush), making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

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 usage guidance by stating 'Works best on a full-canvas cel' and comparing to outline_cel. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or describe prerequisites (e.g., layer must have opaque pixels). Still clear enough for most use cases.

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