export_frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the output_pattern requirement and substitution behavior, which is good. However, it does not disclose whether files are overwritten, what image format is used, or how the scale parameter affects output. Some behavioral context is present but incomplete.

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 very concise: three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous content. Perfectly efficient.

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 presence of many sibling export tools and 3 parameters, the description is somewhat complete for the main purpose but lacks guidance on choosing this tool and does not describe all parameters. It adequately covers the output_pattern but misses scale and filename semantics. No output schema exists, so more documentation would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for output_pattern (with placeholders and example) but provides no information for filename or scale. The baseline for zero coverage is 4, but the description only partially compensates, so a 3 reflects the partial added value.

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 tool exports each frame to its own image file, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_png or export_spritesheet by focusing on individual frame output. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 like export_spritesheet or export_gif. It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly among siblings.

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