Open sprites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that 'select' switches the active sprite and makes it the target for all following tools, which is an important side effect. It also mentions the error string from an error, adding context beyond a plain 'list' statement.

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 compact sentences, with the core listing behavior and result fields front-loaded, followed by targeted usage guidance. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description explains the return contents (id, name, size, frames, active) and the side effect of the optional parameter, which is enough for a simple list-to-select tool. Minor gaps like error handling or the behavior with no open sprites are not covered, but are not critical here.

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 100% for the single parameter, so baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'select' takes an id or name and that invoking it changes which sprite subsequent tools operate on, going beyond the schema's bare parameter description.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('sprites open in Aseprite'), enumerates the returned fields (id, name, size, frames, active), and separately explains the 'select' action that switches the active sprite. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like aseprite_open or aseprite_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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'use it after an 'artist switched sprites' error or to work on several sprites in turn.' It gives clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the context is sufficient.

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