exportCompFrame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does mention the output is a PNG and that a path is returned, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting existing files at the output path, or any permissions or resource implications. The behavior is simple, but more could be said.

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 three sentences, all of which serve a purpose: stating the function, indicating when to use it, and providing the follow-up step. There is no fluff or repetition of schema information, making it concise and well-structured with the key information front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, and the resulting workflow. It does not explicitly state the return type, but the mention of 'returned path' implies it. The description effectively completes the workflow without requiring additional explanation.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters themselves; it only mentions the general purpose. Since the schema adequately documents each parameter, the description's lack of parameter-level detail is acceptable.

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's function: 'Export a single frame from a composition as PNG for visual verification.' It specifies the action (export), the resource (a single frame from a composition), and the output format (PNG). This is distinct from sibling tools that create or modify compositions, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this after creating or modifying compositions to verify the result looks correct.' It also provides a follow-up workflow: 'Then use the Read tool on the returned path to view the image.' While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or named alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for visual verification tasks.

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