aseprite_export

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it writes a new named folder, never overwrites, exports only visible layers, produces untrimmed output, and clarifies that metadata frame indices are 0-based while frame parameters are 1-based. These are safety-relevant and useful for correct invocation.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, stating the core output first and then layering safety and frame-index details. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given the moderate complexity, the description covers output format, folder-creation behavior, non-overwrite guarantees, and frame indexing. It does not explicitly describe the tool's return value or the columns parameter, but the schema and the output format description carry most of the remaining burden.

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 already high at 83%, and the description still adds value by explaining that from/to are inclusive and that metadata frame indices are 0-based. The only schema parameter without a description, columns, is not addressed, but the description enriches the most ambiguous frame-related semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource: exporting visible layers to a transparent, untrimmed PNG sprite sheet and Aseprite-style JSON. It also includes output details like frame durations and tags, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling export_gif tool.

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 operational context, such as creating a new folder and never overwriting, and optional from/to frame selection. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over aseprite_export_gif or other siblings; usage is implied by the output format rather than stated as guidance.

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