pr_export_frame

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the precondition (an *active* sequence must be open), the mechanism (QE still export) and that output is full resolution rather than downscaled. It says nothing about overwrite behavior if the PNG exists, execution cost/latency, or failure modes, and filesystem side effects are only implied. Useful context, but not complete for an unannotated write-to-disk tool.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the verb and destination, followed by the default behavior and the invocation rationale. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what comes back — yet it never says whether the tool returns image content, a path, or just a success signal. For an agent whose stated goal is to "LOOK at the result," that ambiguity matters. Otherwise adequate for a 2-parameter tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the playhead default for `time_seconds` and ties `output_path` to the PNG destination, but adds no syntax, unit, or constraint detail beyond the schema (e.g. whether `time_seconds` must be within sequence bounds).

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 (export), a precisely scoped resource (one frame of the active sequence), the output format (PNG), the destination (`output_path`), and the underlying mechanism (QE still export at full resolution). No sibling in the list does frame export, so it is trivially distinguishable from pr_catalog, pr_do, pr_batch, pr_verify, 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?

"Use it to LOOK at the result of an edit" gives a clear motivating context for invoking it, which is more than most tools offer. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming an alternative (e.g. a preview/thumbnail sibling or pr_verify), so it lacks the when-not half of the 5 bar.

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