aseprite_get_info

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 usefully discloses the returned contents (path, version, capability status) and implies a non-mutating diagnostic, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., whether it errors or returns a flag when Aseprite is not installed) or cost/latency of the scripting test.

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. Every clause earns its place by naming a distinct piece of information the tool retrieves.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is nearly sufficient for a simple diagnostic call. The only meaningful gap is failure behavior when Aseprite is absent, which an agent would want to know before building a pipeline on top of it.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not invent parameter guidance.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('Aseprite executable path, version'), plus a diagnostic side task ('test CLI/Lua scripting capability'). It is clearly distinct from action-oriented siblings like aseprite_convert or aseprite_draw_pixels, but it never explicitly says how it differs from aseprite_inspect_sprite or aseprite_run_lua.

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 statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisite context, and no alternative named. The agent can infer it is an environment/health-check tool, but nothing in the text tells it to run this before invoking the other Aseprite tools or when to prefer it over aseprite_run_lua for capability probing.

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