export_formats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the 'centred cover crop' behavior, but it doesn't state whether an export creates a file, triggers an async render, requires authentication, or what the response contains.

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 compact and front-loads the listing action. The semicolon construction is a bit awkward, but the text wastes few words and conveys the dominant behavior quickly.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% description coverage in the schema, the description leaves critical gaps: return format, input semantics, output destination, and how this relates to sibling export tools. It is functional but incomplete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It indicates that 'input' is the thing to be exported and that 'format' relates to aspect ratios, but it doesn't define what input values are valid (e.g., media id, file path) or how format maps to the crop behavior.

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 states two clear behaviors: listing aspect ratios and exporting an input with a centred cover crop. It names the resource ('aspect ratios') and the action ('export'), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling export tools such as export_gif or export_thumbnail_set.

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?

There is no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus export_gif, export_thumbnail_set, or render_get_output. The two mode condition is only implied by 'with an input' versus without one, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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