Runs every Export node in the open Pixel Composer project and waits until output files stop changing, so all renders finish before the agent continues.
Run every Export node of the open project and wait until the output files stop changing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it runs all Export nodes and blocks until output files stop changing, which is useful, but it omits timeout behavior, error handling, side effects on project state, and permission requirements.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant text; it efficiently conveys the core action and wait condition.
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 no-annotation action tool with no output schema, the description should explain return values, timeout semantics, and failure modes. It covers the core action and blocking wait but leaves these gaps, making it only adequate.
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 sole parameter `timeout` has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. It does not clarify units (e.g., seconds), default behavior, or what happens when the timeout is reached.
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?
States a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('every Export node of the open project') plus the wait condition. It is clearly distinguishable from generic run_command but does not explicitly compare itself to any sibling.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus run_command or status, no explicit prerequisite that a project must be open, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.