export_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns SVG code but doesn't describe what '현재 캔버스' (current canvas) refers to, whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, or output format details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '현재 캔버스' means in context, what the returned SVG code looks like, or how it differs from sibling export tools. For a tool that likely interacts with a graphical interface, more contextual information would be helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'format' parameter fully documented (enum: raw, pretty, minified; default: pretty). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: '현재 캔버스의 SVG 코드를 반환합니다' (Returns the SVG code of the current canvas). It specifies the verb ('반환합니다' - returns) and resource ('SVG 코드' - SVG code), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_svg' or 'export_png', which appear to serve similar export functions.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'export_svg' or 'export_png', nor does it specify contexts or prerequisites for usage. The agent must infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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