spine_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions dependency on 'official Spine CLI and an export settings JSON file', setting expectations for external requirements. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or prerequisites beyond the parameters.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second lists exclusions. No extraneous text, front-loaded with the most important information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 2 required, no output schema) and rich schema descriptions, the description covers core usage and exclusions adequately. It could provide more context on return values or error handling, but the combination of schema and description is reasonably complete.

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%, and the schema's parameter descriptions are already quite detailed (e.g., clean, updateVersion, exportSettingsPath). The tool description adds little additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'export a .spine project with the official Spine CLI and an export settings JSON file', clearly specifying verb, resource, and method. It also lists explicit exclusions (texture-only packing, JSON import, etc.) that differentiate it from siblings like spine_import_json or spine_add_simple_animation.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (exporting .spine projects) and provides a clear list of what not to use it for. While it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, the exclusions provide sufficient guidance for an agent to choose correctly.

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