export_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the non-obvious trait that the tool returns the rendered image, and explains why that matters (making blank output visible). It doesn't mention the file-write side effect, but the schema already covers output_path overwriting, so this goes beyond structured fields.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a concise rationale without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and why to use it. It could more explicitly route to export_file for file-only use cases, but the essential information an agent needs to call and interpret the tool is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so dpi, input_path, and output_path are already documented with adequate descriptions. The tool description doesn't add per-parameter semantics, but it frames the overall operation as rendering to PNG, which is consistent with the baseline.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Render to PNG and RETURN THE IMAGE'. The emphasis on returning the image clearly differentiates it from sibling export tools like export_file and export_batch.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the model needs to visually verify its own work, using the blank-canvas example as a concrete rationale. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is strong enough for selection among the export siblings.

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