export_sprite

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool exports a file, omitting details such as whether the output file overwrites existing files, the path it is written to (relative or absolute), and whether the source file must be open. This minimal transparency is insufficient for a potentially destructive operation, scoring 2.

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 concise with a clear sentence stating the purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameters. It avoids unnecessary detail, but the structure could be slightly improved by separating the overall description from the parameter list more clearly. Nonetheless, it is efficient and well-organized, scoring 4.

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?

The description covers the tool's basic functionality and parameters, but lacks information about return values, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., the file must exist and be open in Aseprite). Given there is no output schema, the description should provide more context on what to expect after execution. While adequate for a simple tool, it has gaps, scoring 3.

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 description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter beyond what the input schema provides. For example, it specifies 'Name of the Aseprite file to export' for filename, 'Name of the output file' for output_filename, and lists acceptable formats for the format parameter with a default. This enriches the schema's minimal titles, earning a score of 4.

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 the Aseprite file to another format.' It includes the specific verb 'export' and the resource (Aseprite file). While it effectively communicates the core purpose, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings that might also deal with file operations, though no direct sibling with similar function is present. A score of 4 is appropriate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks any statement about prerequisites, side effects, or comparison to similar tools like copy_sprite. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation, earning a score of 2.

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