export_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does mention the key behavior of format selection via extension, but it omits other important traits such as overwrite behavior, potential error conditions, or whether the image must be open. The description provides minimal transparency beyond the format mechanism.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and format-determining detail. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate for a simple export operation but lacks context on prerequisites, alternative tools, and behavior on overwrite. It provides the essential behavior but leaves gaps for the agent to infer from schema or siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention image_id, path, or overwrite directly, though the phrase 'explicit file extension' hints that the path should include the desired extension. This minimal hint adds little meaning beyond the schema's field names.

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 'Export an image using the format selected by the explicit file extension' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool exports an image. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like save_xcf by highlighting that the format is determined by the file extension, which is a key differentiating detail.

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 implies usage for exporting to a format chosen by the file extension, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like save_xcf or state when not to use this tool. There is no direct exclusion or mention of other save/export tools, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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