export_feedback_png

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool exports a PNG to local machine and returns a file_marker that must be copied exactly. While it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, the export nature implies no destructive side effects. However, it could be more explicit about permissions or error conditions.

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 fairly concise but includes necessary details. It uses emojis and bullet points for structure, making it scannable. However, it could be slightly shorter; the file_marker instruction could be integrated more cleanly.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers the essential usage context and post-export steps. It mentions the output fields but not all. The missing details about parameter meaning and potential error cases prevent a higher score.

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 0% coverage for descriptions (no description in schema). The only parameter is sheet_id, and the description merely says '参数 sheet_id 字符串传' (pass as string). It does not explain what sheet_id represents (e.g., which feedback sheet ID) or how to obtain it. This is minimal value added beyond the schema type.

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 tool exports a single feedback sheet as a parent-version PNG and downloads it locally. It specifies the output structure {ok, local_path, file_marker, ...}. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool export_feedback_batch_png by emphasizing it's for single sheets only.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for viewing a single section) and when not to (regular parent scenarios should use export_feedback_batch_png). It also provides post-export instructions about the file_marker, guiding the agent on how to include it in the response.

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