export_asset_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says two outputs are produced in one call, but it says nothing about whether existing files are overwritten, how inputs are resolved, what the manifest contains, or what error behavior to expect. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that creates files.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It front-loads the core action and output, though it is quite terse for a tool with five parameters.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, this one-liner is not complete enough. It omits the meaning of columns and padding, the relationship between inputs and outputs, and any sense of the manifest format or naming behavior. An agent would still need to inspect the schema and guess at intended 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. It doesn't explain input_filenames, columns, padding, or even make clear that output_filename is the PNG path and manifest_filename is the JSON path. The phrase 'atlas PNG and a compact JSON manifest' hints at the outputs but doesn't map to the required parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Export') and a concrete resource ('an atlas PNG and a compact JSON manifest'), which makes the tool's high-level function clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from siblings like export_spritesheet or export_animation_gif, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or tradeoffs compared to the many related export and bundle-generation tools in the sibling list.

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