resolve_export_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Export' which implies file creation, but doesn't disclose whether existing files are overwritten, what happens if output_path is invalid, or any permissions needed. It also doesn't mention that exporting might affect the timeline state (though it likely doesn't). The description is too thin to fully inform 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 concise, with a clear purpose statement and a structured Args section. Every sentence provides useful information, and the format options are listed compactly. It's slightly thin but well organized.

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's simplicity (2 params, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks usage context (when to choose this over other export/render tools), error behavior, and prerequisites (e.g., a loaded timeline). These gaps prevent it from being fully complete.

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 parameter detail beyond the schema: it specifies output_path as an absolute path and enumerates the allowed format values with a default. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it doesn't add constraints like file extension rules or format-specific notes.

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 the current timeline to an interchange format, listing specific formats (fcpxml, edl, csv, aaf, otio). This is specific enough to distinguish from related tools like resolve_export_lut (which exports LUTs) and resolve_quick_export (which renders for delivery). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions like 'use this for interchange formats' or 'use resolve_quick_export for final render'. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose, which is insufficient for a tool with many siblings.

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