aseprite_export_gif

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

With all annotations false, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: source document stays unchanged, durations round to 10 ms, alpha threshold 128, 255 opaque color limit per frame, and it reports alpha/color/timing changes. This goes well beyond the annotations and informs the agent of side effects and fidelity constraints.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero filler. The core action and scope come first, followed by options, fidelity details, and the non-mutation guarantee. Every sentence adds value.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers folder creation, animation properties, repeat behavior, timing/color/alpha limitations, reporting of changes, and non-mutation of the source. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 high at 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining inclusive from/to ranges, timeline order, frame duration rounding, and repeating the repeat semantics in a way that maps directly to parameter behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export visible layers as an animated transparent GIF into a NEW folder.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from generic aseprite_export by naming the exact output format, layer scope, and folder behavior.

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 context for what the tool does and its options, but it never explicitly tells the agent when to choose this over siblings like aseprite_export or aseprite_preview. Usage is implied by the GIF-specific wording, but no alternative is named or excluded.

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