cli

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It discloses the batch-mode execution and that output is returned, but does not warn about the key behavioral traits of arbitrary CLI execution: arbitrary file writes from --save-as/--sheet, working-directory assumptions, or the timeoutSeconds budget. Useful context, but not the full safety picture.

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 invocation form, followed by concrete flag examples and a canonical doc link. No sentence is padding, and the most important information comes first.

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?

For a tool that shells out to an external binary with no output schema and an undocumented timeout parameter, the description is adequate but thin. It says output is returned but omits where files are written, what the effective working directory is, and how timeouts manifest, all of which matter for correct invocation.

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 50%: 'args' is documented in the schema with an example, while 'timeoutSeconds' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description's flag list helps an agent construct args, but adds no semantics for the timeout-bound parameter, so the baseline 3 fits.

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 ('Runs the Aseprite command line in batch mode (aseprite -b <args>) and returns its output'), which is concrete and distinguishable from wrappers like run_lua. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as export_sprite_sheet or run_lua, so an agent must infer the boundary from the tool list.

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 list of example flags ('--sheet/--data exports, --split-layers, --list-tags, --save-as...') implies the cases where this raw-CLI escape hatch is useful. However, it never says when to prefer the dedicated siblings (export, export_sprite_sheet, run_lua) instead, leaving routing to inference.

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