export_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions output format behavior (GIF vs PNG) and scale default, but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing files, affects the source file, or requires specific file state. This is insufficient for a complete behavioral picture.

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 short and front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence. The Args section is structured but could be formatted more cleanly. No redundant information.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality but omits error conditions, return behavior, and prerequisites. It is adequate for a simple export but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that output_filename extension determines file type (GIF animation vs PNG sequence) and scale default. However, it does not explain filename (expected Aseprite file), tag_name (case sensitivity), or output_filename path resolution. Partial compensation.

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 frames of an animation tag as a GIF or PNG sequence. The verb 'export' and resource 'animation tag' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling export tools like export_frame (single frame) and export_sprite (entire sprite).

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 parameter details and implies when to use (exporting a tagged animation), but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare with alternatives. With many sibling export tools, clearer guidance would help.

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