export_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Exports') which implies a write operation that creates a file, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the file already exists (overwrite? error?), file size considerations, performance characteristics, or error conditions. For a file-writing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it immediately comprehensible. Every word earns its place.

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 a tool that writes files to disk with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, file naming conventions, supported image formats beyond what's in the enum, or how the time parameter relates to the sequence. The agent lacks crucial context for reliable tool invocation.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'image file' which aligns with the format parameter's enum values, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, constraints, or best practices. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Exports') and resource ('a single frame from a sequence as an image file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'export_sequence' by specifying 'single frame' rather than entire sequence. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible alternatives like 'export_sequence' in the description text itself.

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 like 'export_sequence' or other media export tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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