canvas_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the output is ASCII text, but it does not state whether this operation is read-only, if it modifies the canvas, or if it returns a string versus writing to a file. This lack of safety/side-effect context leaves the agent uncertain about the operation's impact.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it identifies the action, target, and result format. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the return value (whether the ASCII text is returned directly) and that the canvas is left unchanged, which would improve completeness for an agent.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description adequately covers parameter semantics by omission; the tool requires no arguments, and the description does not need to add further 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 action ('导出' / export), the resource ('当前画布' / current canvas), and the output format ('ASCII 文本' / ASCII text). This is specific and effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like canvas_preview (likely visual preview) and draw_line (drawing operations).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as canvas_preview or canvas_batch. The description only states what it does, without any contextual hints or exclusions, so an agent receives no help in selecting among siblings.

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