aseprite_open_in_gui

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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the action itself. It does not say whether a GUI/display environment must be running, whether the call requires a specific OS, whether it blocks or returns immediately, or what happens on failure — all material for a GUI-launching tool.

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 differentiator (GUI window) appears immediately. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to earn full marks given the missing behavioral detail.

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?

Simple one-parameter tool with no output schema needed, so the schema side is covered. However, the interaction with the environment (display availability, blocking behaviour) is undocumented, which is a real gap for a tool whose whole purpose is to surface a GUI window.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'filepath' fully; the description adds no format, extension, or path-resolution detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured data does the work.

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 concrete verb ('open') and resource ('.aseprite file'), and the phrase 'on your screen inside the Aseprite GUI window' clearly distinguishes it from headless siblings like aseprite_convert or aseprite_run_lua. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, so it doesn't reach 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word 'Directly' hints at an interactive/visual use case, but nothing tells the agent when this is preferable to a headless sibling such as aseprite_get_info or aseprite_export_spritesheet.

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