aseprite_preview

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the important context that it requires a current revision, which is a behavioral precondition beyond the annotations. It aligns perfectly with the declared hints.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, method, requirements, and side effects. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 simple read-only preview tool, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, how it renders (nearest-neighbor), what it requires (current revision), and that it has no side effects. No additional information is needed for an agent to call it 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?

The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. The schema already provides clear descriptions for all parameters (documentId, expectedRevision, frame, scale) with 75% coverage, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional semantic value is contributed.

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 clearly states the tool renders the composited artwork for one frame as a PNG with nearest-neighbor scaling, specifies the resource (frame), and explicitly notes it requires a current revision and does not modify the document. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 conveys when to use it (requires a current revision) and what it does not do (no document changes), effectively distinguishing it from editing tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like aseprite_export or aseprite_export_gif, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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