sprite_export

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions modes but doesn't explain their effects, output formats, side effects like overwriting, or any requirements. It's too vague to predict tool behavior.

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 short but under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads the action but omits essential details. The mode list is a hint, not an explanation. Every sentence is minimal but not informative.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, this description is severely inadequate. It fails to explain modes, parameter meanings, or the export process. An agent would need to guess or experiment to use it correctly.

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. It does not explain any parameter—mode values are listed but not defined, and scale, filename, frame_index, and workspace_id are entirely unaddressed. No compensation at all.

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 a specific action (export) and resource (staged artifacts into workspace artifacts folder). The mention of modes (frame/gif/spritesheet) adds specificity and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sprite_preview or sprite_inspect, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. An agent has no direction on selecting this over sprite_preview, sprite_patch, or file_commit.

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