aseprite_convert

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 says nothing about whether outputPath is overwritten if it exists, whether the input sprite must be closed/valid, how animated frames are handled in the conversion, or what errors occur on invalid scale values. Only the core transform is 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 covering the action, the formats, and the optional scaling feature, with no filler. It is efficient, though it omits a parenthetical clarifying frameRange, which would have been cheap to include.

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 file-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not state what is returned or how output is reported, nor does it cover overwrite behavior or frame-range interaction. It covers the core purpose but leaves meaningful gaps for a mutation-style tool.

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 100%, so each of the four parameters is already documented in the schema, making a baseline of 3 appropriate. The description adds only marginal value by giving scaling examples (2x, 4x, 8x) and never mentions frameRange, whose semantics ('1,4') would benefit from explanation.

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 gives a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('sprite file') and enumerates the target formats (.png, .gif, .aseprite), plus the optional scaling capability. It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like aseprite_export_spritesheet, which also produce output files from a sprite.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this conversion tool versus aseprite_export_spritesheet, aseprite_inspect_sprite, or the GUI opener. No prerequisites, no mention of which formats are valid inputs, and no conditions under which scaling should be applied are stated.

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