export_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that format is inferred from file extension and relative paths are resolved against project home. However, it omits critical behaviors like overwrite policy, error handling, or whether the operation is destructive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No extraneous words. Efficiently communicates core function and two key details.

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 no annotations and the presence of a sibling tool (export_map_view), the description is adequate for a simple export but lacks completeness on return values, overwrite behavior, and error conditions. Covers essential purpose but leaves gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to output_path by stating format is inferred from extension, but does not explain dpi (default 200) or layout_name. Only one parameter partially explained.

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 explicitly states the tool exports a layout to common image formats (PDF/PNG/JPEG/SVG) with format inferred from file extension, clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'export_map_view' by specifying 'layout'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., export_map_view), no prerequisites, and no conditions for when not to use it. It only mentions relative path resolution but lacks usage context.

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