aseprite_tilemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it is read-only even for locked layers. It also discloses the exact packed data format, which is valuable context for a tool with no output schema.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler. Every clause adds information: read action, target resource, output components, pixel formats, and safety behavior.

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 there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the tool returns. It could be more explicit about how the optional 'tile' parameter triggers artwork retrieval, but the schema covers all required inputs and the description covers output expectations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining bit-level tile ID layout and RGB pixel packing, and it clarifies the tile artwork option beyond the schema's brief 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies an exact resource ('a tilemap cel') with detailed output semantics. It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like aseprite_inspect and aseprite_edit by focusing on tilemap-specific data.

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 it: when you need tilemap cel data, including on locked layers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like aseprite_inspect for general layer inspection, leaving some routing to inference.

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