export_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the scale parameter details (nearest-neighbor scaling, default 1) and the export action. However, it does not disclose whether the tool overwrites existing output files, whether it modifies the original file, or any error conditions. This is adequate for a simple export but lacks comprehensive transparency.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence for the core function, a short usage hint, and a bulleted argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and parameters. However, it does not specify the return value (if any), whether the output file is created absolutely/relative, or potential side effects. For a straightforward export, this might be sufficient, but it lacks some contextual details that would help an agent use it confidently.

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 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter documentation is essential. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'filename: Aseprite file to export', 'frame_index: Frame index starting at 1', 'output_filename: Output PNG path', and 'scale: Integer nearest-neighbor scale factor (default 1)'. This compensates well for the lacking schema descriptions, though it could be more detailed (e.g., file path handling).

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 'Export a single frame as a PNG, optionally scaled up,' which identifies the specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes itself from sibling export tools by focusing on a single frame and PNG format, it does not explicitly contrast with tools like export_sprite or export_layers, so it misses the highest score.

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 provides a concrete use case: 'Use this for visual feedback while drawing: export at scale 8-10 and open the PNG to inspect the result, then keep iterating.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternative export tools.

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