export_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic operation (export as PNG) but lacks details on side effects (e.g., file creation, overwriting), permissions needed, or the destination of the output file. The parameter 'output' implies a file path, but behavior is not explained.

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, front-loaded sentence of 12 words. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 tool has 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently detailed. It omits crucial context such as output format (though implied), error conditions, and parameter interdependencies. A more complete description would explain the role of each parameter and any constraints.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no specific parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. While it hints that 'layer' and 'frame' are relevant, it does not explain defaults, constraints, or the purpose of 'scale', 'output', and 'filename'. The description thus fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (a single layer of one frame), and the output format (PNG). It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_png (exports whole frame) and export_layers (exports all layers) by specifying 'single layer' and 'others excluded'.

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 when to use the tool (to export one layer of a specific frame), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative sibling tools. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use export_png instead.

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