export

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the return behavior (file path, optionally base64) and the different behaviors of each format (png: true transparency, gif: animation, aseprite_json: embedded spritesheet). It does not disclose potential side effects like file overwriting or authorization requirements, but covers the main behavioral aspects well.

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 extremely concise: three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core function, the second lists format-specific behaviors, and the third clarifies the delivery purpose and distinguishes from perception tools. Every sentence adds essential value.

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 an export tool with 7 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and format distinctions. It does not detail every parameter (e.g., scale, loop), but the schema already does. Missing are potential error conditions or file overwrite semantics, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.

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?

With 86% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by explaining the semantic implications of the format parameter (what each format yields). This contextualization helps the agent understand the output beyond the raw schema properties.

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 exports a document to a real file and returns its absolute path. It explicitly lists three formats (png, gif, aseprite_json) with their specific behaviors (transparency, animation, embedded spritesheet), and distinguishes itself from view tools by stating it is for delivery humans and contains no rendered image.

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 a clear guideline to use view/view_frames for perception when the user needs to see the rendered image, which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over other export-like siblings, though no direct siblings exist for exporting.

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