api_docs

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, a low bar for a doc reader. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the content is bundled from github.com/aseprite/api, and omitting the topic switches the tool into a listing mode. It does not describe the shape of the returned reference text, but for a safe read-only lookup this is a solid disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core action and the no-argument fallback are front-loaded, and the topic list is placed last where it is only needed after the agent has decided to call the tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return. It says it 'reads the API reference' but never states the return format (prose, markdown, structured sections) or whether results are chunked. For a single-parameter, read-only doc tool the missing pieces are minor, but not fully covered.

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%, setting the baseline at 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by enumerating the full set of valid topic names and showing the command/<CommandName> pattern. That materially helps the agent construct a valid topic value rather than guessing from the schema's three examples.

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+resource: 'Reads the Aseprite Lua API reference,' with the source repo named. The description also explains the no-argument behavior (lists topics), so an agent can distinguish this documentation-lookup tool from execution siblings like run_lua or run_command without opening the schema.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: pass a topic to read a specific section, omit it to enumerate available topics. It enumerates the topic vocabulary (app, sprite, layer, cel, image, ...) so the agent knows what it can ask for, but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_commands or use_tool, nor any exclusions.

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