ask_user

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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description carries most of the burden and delivers: it is blocking (waits for user), live-mode-only, and interactive. It does not explain the readOnlyHint=false side effect nor the timeout behavior, but the core behavioral traits are 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the live-mode constraint, with no filler. Slightly list-like in the field-type enumeration but each clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does explain the return ('returns the pressed button and field values'). For a 5-param interactive tool it covers the essentials, though it omits timeout semantics and nested field detail.

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 coverage is 40%, below the 50% threshold, so the description must compensate. It lists the field types (entry, number, slider, check, combobox, color, label), mentions buttons, and states the return value, mapping meaning onto the fields/buttons params, though nested field attributes (min, max, value, decimals) remain undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource: it shows a dialog in Aseprite and waits for the user to answer. It also names the interaction surface (text, input fields, buttons) and the return. No sibling tool does anything similar, so it is inherently distinguishable.

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 leading 'Live mode:' clause implies a mode prerequisite, giving some usage context. However, it names no alternatives, no when-not conditions, and no guidance on when to prefer this over plain scripting.

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