export_svg

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

Annotations only specify destructiveHint: false, which indicates the operation is not destructive. The description adds the 'bounded Inkscape pipeline' phrase but does not clarify what 'bounded' means (e.g., size limits, resource constraints). It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the source, or what side effects (if any) occur. With minimal annotation coverage, the description should provide more behavioral context but offers only a vague hint.

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, short sentence, which is concise and front-loads the core purpose. However, it is overly terse given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 5 required). While no unnecessary words are used, the brevity sacrifices informative content. It earns a middle score because it is concise but not adequately structured to support the agent.

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?

With 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and only a vague mention of 'bounded' pipeline, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the purpose of expectedRevision, outputPath, textToPath, or how the flavor parameter maps to output. The existing output schema might help, but since it is not visible, the description alone is inadequate for an agent to understand the full invocation context. The tool is moderately complex, requiring more elaboration.

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 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters (including required ones like path, outputPath, workspaceId, expectedRevision, flavor, and optional textToPath and expectedOutputRevision) have any documentation. The description mentions the 'flavor' concept but does not explain any parameter semantics, relationships, or formatting requirements. This forces the agent to rely solely on parameter names and types, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 exports an SVG and distinguishes two output flavors (Inkscape or plain), which differentiates it from sibling export tools like export_png and export_pdf. The phrase 'through the bounded Inkscape pipeline' adds specific context. The verb 'Exports' plus resource 'SVG' is precise and unambiguous.

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 this tool is for SVG export, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over export_png or export_pdf, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'bounded' pipeline hints at limitations but is not explained. No alternative tools are named, so the agent has to infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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