export_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read/export operation but omits details about side effects (none intended), required permissions, or error handling scenarios like missing files or out-of-range frames. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks context about expected behaviors such as overwriting output files, default frame number behavior (1-indexed), and what happens if the specified layer doesn't exist. The absence of an output schema means the description could clarify return value (e.g., success/failure).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no added meaning beyond parameter names and descriptions in the input schema. Parameters like filePath, frameNumber, outputPath, and layerName are self-explanatory from the schema alone.

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 'Export', the resource 'a single frame', and the output 'as an image file'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like export_layers and export_sprite_sheet which handle multiple frames or layers.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_sprite_sheet or export_layers. The description does not mention when to avoid using it or any prerequisites like file existence or frame validity.

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