export_png

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the overwrite parameter's no-clobber default and indicates the operation is an export, implying non-destructive. However, it does not explicitly state that the source sprite is not modified, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., sprite must be open). Sufficient but not thorough.

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 concise: one sentence summarizing the action plus a bulleted list of arguments. No unnecessary information. Could be improved by structuring the args more clearly (e.g., using a table) or adding a note about the missing filename parameter.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the 'filename' parameter, does not describe return behavior, and provides no context about prerequisites or how this tool fits among many similar export siblings. The agent may struggle to use it correctly without additional information.

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?

The description adds meaning for 4 of 5 parameters (output, frame, scale, overwrite) including defaults and semantics. However, it completely omits the required 'filename' parameter, leaving its purpose unclear. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and this gap reduces the score.

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?

Clearly states it exports one frame as a flattened PNG. The verb 'export' and resource 'one frame' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling export tools like export_frames or export_gif, which could cause confusion. A mention of when to use this vs others would push it to 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide context for selecting this over export_frames, export_layer, etc. The agent is left to infer the tool's role based on name and parameters alone.

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