export_ink

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authorization, or what side effects occur (e.g., saving a file). Export tools are typically non-destructive, but this is not stated.

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 sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the return value when filePath is omitted (implied by filePath description but not stated explicitly) or provide behavioral context for a tool with four parameters.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema; it sets context (Ink component) but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints beyond what is already in the schema.

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 action (export), the resource (current frame), and the output format (Ink React CLI component for Node.js terminal apps). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_ansi, export_bubbletea, etc.

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 usage for generating Ink components but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., export_react for React, export_bubbletea for Bubble Tea). No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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