aseprite_status

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by explaining the conditional action of asking the user to connect if disconnected, which goes beyond the basic annotations and clarifies the tool's behavior in a specific scenario.

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 concise, consisting of just two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides a helpful conditional instruction. No unnecessary words 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 covers the tool's main function and a relevant edge case (disconnected). Since there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to know when and how to use the tool.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add anything about parameters since there are none to explain.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('check') and a specific resource ('Aseprite connection and output folder'). It also provides a conditional action for the disconnected case, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies when to use the tool (whenever checking the connection or output folder is needed) and even gives guidance on what to do if disconnected. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling tools are distinct enough that no alternative comparison is necessary.

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