aseprite_analyze_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only/analysis operation, whether it writes any files, whether results are deterministic, or how the extracted style feeds into sibling tools like aseprite_apply_palette. Only the output categories are disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key verb and outputs come first. It is efficient, though the output list runs slightly long for such a short description.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with 4 params, the description is only adequately complete: it names outputs but omits when to use it, what happens to the width/height params, and how the analysis is consumed downstream. An agent can call it but has gaps.

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 coverage is 50% already. The description's mention of 'reference image or text prompt' loosely maps to referenceImage and prompt, but the width/height parameters (defaulting to 64) are never explained, and the enumerated outputs do not clarify what the two dimension params do.

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?

Specific verb ('Extract') plus the concrete artifacts produced (palette HEX, shading style, outline rules, grid specs) and the input sources (reference image or text prompt). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like aseprite_create_sprite or aseprite_apply_palette, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'from a reference image or text prompt' hints at input modes but does not say when an agent should analyze style versus just creating a sprite directly.

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