export-lottie-json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost no behavior. It does not state that the tool writes a file to disk, whether an existing file at outputPath is overwritten, what permissions are needed, or whether the composition must be open/selected. 'production-ready' is a marketing adjective rather than a behavioral fact.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and artifact stated immediately and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a file-producing tool whose side effects are undocumented.

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 and no output schema, the description must cover behavior, and it does not: nothing explains the on-disk write, overwrite semantics, failure modes (missing comp, invalid path), or return value. Schema fields are well covered, but the operational context an agent needs before invoking a file-export tool is absent.

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 100%, with all three parameters documented in the schema including the compName/compIndex alternative and the Documents-folder default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Export) and resource (After Effects composition) and states the output artifact (Lottie JSON animation file). It implicitly differentiates from export-dotlottie-package by specifying plain JSON rather than a .lottie package, but it never names that sibling, so the distinction is left for the agent to infer.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the several related siblings (export-dotlottie-package, compile-lottie-comp, generate-lottie-interactivity, audit-lottie-compliance). No prerequisites are stated, such as whether a composition must exist or be active first.

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