aseprite_export_spritesheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies file writes (creating .png and .json outputs) but says nothing about overwrite behavior, required Aseprite runtime availability, whether the source file is modified, or error conditions. For a write-producing tool this is a significant gap.

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 efficient, front-loaded sentence naming the key outputs; nothing is wasted. It is slightly thin for a tool with 11 parameters, but the structure itself is clean.

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?

With 11 parameters, 45% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should do much more to explain the export configuration surface (layout modes, padding, tag/layer splitting). As written, an agent cannot confidently invoke it beyond the two required paths.

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 only 45% across 11 parameters, and the description only implicitly references the two output paths (sheetPath, dataPath). Undocumented parameters like splitTags, splitLayers, trim, and the three padding options receive no clarification in the description, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (export) and resource (sprite/animation into a packed spritesheet with .png texture and .json metadata), and names the output artifacts. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like aseprite_convert or aseprite_run_pipeline, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to choose this over aseprite_convert or aseprite_run_pipeline, no prerequisites (e.g. requires an open/source .aseprite file), and no mention of when NOT to use it. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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