export_layers

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

With no annotations, the description covers basic behavior: exports each layer, creates output directory if missing, and includes a flag for hidden layers. However, it does not mention overwriting behavior, file conflicts, or whether the original file is modified. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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: a single-line summary followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the naming convention and directory behavior. Minor gaps exist (e.g., error handling, overwrite policy), but they are not critical for basic usage.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains each parameter (filename, output_directory, include_hidden) with meaning beyond the schema, including the default and the behavior of directory creation.

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: exporting each layer as its own PNG file with a specific naming pattern. It uses a specific verb (export) and resource (layers), and the naming convention distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_frame, export_sprite, etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not how it compares to other export tools or any prerequisites.

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