launch_aseprite

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses that an external GUI process is spawned, that it blocks waiting for a connection, and that a trust dialog requires human interaction the first time. That interactive-friction detail is exactly the kind of context an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and effect before the first-run caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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, and the description covers what the tool does, the blocking wait, and the first-run trust prompt. It stops short of saying what happens on connection timeout or what state the bridge is left in on failure, which would matter for a long-running launch step.

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%, so both parameters (file, waitSeconds with min/max and default) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either, which is acceptable given the coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 ('Starts the Aseprite GUI with the bridge extension') plus the outcome ('waits for it to connect, enabling live mode'). No sibling tool does this, and the description makes the launcher/setup role unmistakable versus tools like use_tool, cli, or status.

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?

Usage context is implied: this must be done to enter live mode, and the 'The first time...' clause signals a one-off setup step. However, it never says when to prefer this over adjacent tools such as install_extension or cli, nor what to do if launch/connect fails.

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