export_frame

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (PNG export, optional scaling) and parameter effects. However, it does not specify whether the output file overwrites existing files, permissions needed, or exact side effects. It adds some value beyond minimal, but could be more detailed.

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 and well-structured. It opens with a clear single-sentence summary, then provides a practical use case, followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and usage scenario. It could mention overwrite behavior or return value confirmation, but the current information suffices for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 provides all parameter semantics. It defines each parameter in the Args list: filename, frame_index, output_filename, scale. For scale, it adds 'Integer nearest-neighbor scale factor (default 1)', which clarifies the type and default. This adds meaning beyond the schema property titles.

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 'Export a single frame as a PNG, optionally scaled up.' It specifies the action (export), resource (single frame), format (PNG), and optional scaling. It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_sprite, export_spritesheet, and export_tag which handle different export scopes.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for visual feedback while drawing: export at scale 8-10 and open the PNG to inspect the result, then keep iterating.' It gives a concrete scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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