sch_export_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the internal process (reads SVG, reframes, rasterizes) and the output behavior (inline image, optional disk save). It does not disclose potential errors or limitations, but the key behaviors are transparent.

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 a single well-structured paragraph with front-loaded key action, followed by clarifications, prerequisites, and return behavior. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose.

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's complexity (CDP, rasterization), the description covers purpose, method, prerequisites, parameters, and return. It lacks explicit output schema details but is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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 100%, yet the description adds significant value by explaining defaults (port, scale), file naming logic, and the overall flow. Each parameter's purpose is enriched beyond the schema.

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 the full schematic sheet as a PNG, distinguishing it from viewport screenshots and specifying the method (Chrome DevTools Protocol). It is a specific verb-resource pair and stands out among sibling export tools.

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 clear prerequisites (EasyEDA Pro with remote debugging, open schematic page) and contrasts with viewport screenshots. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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