Export a thumbnail PDF

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that the PDF is written to the local machine, images are fetched and embedded, and ordering is by QPTR. It also warns about latency. It doesn't mention return values or overwrite behavior, but the main side effects and performance characteristics are covered.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, output, ordering, and audience; the second adds a necessary latency caveat. Every part 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?

For a file-export tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral elements: local output, asset types, ordering, shareable use case, and expected runtime. It could mention what happens when outputPath is omitted, but the schema already documents that the path is returned.

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 param semantics are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds context about output being a PDF and ordering, but doesn't elaborate on range, outputPath, or includeInactive beyond what the schema already states, earning the baseline score.

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 states a specific verb and resource: renders a game's thumbnails and figures into a PDF, ordered by QPTR. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_thumbnails by calling itself the 'shareable version,' which clearly identifies its output and purpose.

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 provides clear usage context: use this when you need a PDF to send to a client or artist, implying get_thumbnails is the alternative for non-PDF needs. It also sets expectations with 'this takes a few seconds,' though it does not explicitly list when not to use it.

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