export_buddy_sprite

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral context. It correctly identifies the operation as an export (likely read-only file creation) and output format, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., file overwrites) or required permissions. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key information (action, resource, format). No unnecessary text, but could be structured to include usage hints without increasing length.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and output. However, it lacks behavioral details such as file overwriting behavior or confirmation that the sprite reflects the current buddy state, which would be useful for a complete context.

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%, with the single 'path' parameter already well-described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('buddy ASCII sprite'), and the output format ('SVG image file'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'export_buddy_card' by specifying 'just the buddy ASCII sprite', making its scope precise and unique.

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 exporting only the sprite, contrasting with sibling tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_buddy_card' or 'pet_buddy'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.

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