batch_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions running a script, but does not disclose side effects such as file writes, overwrite behavior, potential performance impact, prerequisites (like a running Photoshop session), or whether the operation is destructive. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then a usage hint. Every word contributes; there is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately brief for a tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters, the description provides only a high-level overview. It lacks any mention of expected output (e.g., success message, log file), prerequisites (like Photoshop being open), or side effects (file system changes). Although the schema covers parameters, the description should provide more context for a tool with no output schema and no annotations, leaving critical execution details to the agent's inference.

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%, so all 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond the high-level 'multiple formats' note, which matches the 'formats' parameter. Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters and the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 verb ('Runs'), the resource ('batch export'), the method ('using the existing BatchExportProfessional.jsx script'), and the scope ('exporting multiple formats at once'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_pdf or export_image, which target single formats.

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 phrase 'Ideal for exporting multiple formats at once' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., use export_pdf for a single PDF), leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between batch and single exports.

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