plan_profile_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important non-mutating trait by saying files are not written, but it omits prerequisites, validation behavior, and whether the output_directory must exist even for a preview.

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 with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the core action and the non-writing constraint.

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?

The tool accepts four parameters with no schema documentation and no annotations. Although an output schema exists and may cover return values, the description still leaves the required parameters and filtering options unexplained, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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 schema has zero description coverage for four parameters, including required 'profile' and 'output_directory'. The description adds no meaning for any parameter and does not explain size_log2 or texture_sets, so it 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 uses a clear verb ('Preview') and specific resource ('engine-profile texture export') plus a scoping constraint ('without writing files'). It distinguishes the operation from actual export tools by emphasizing preview, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'without writing files' implies this should be used before committing to a real export, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name alternatives such as export_with_profile or plan_texture_export. Usage is inferable but not clearly directed.

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