export_png

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. The description reveals this is a file export operation (implying file system writes) and mentions a limitation about current PNG export quality (recommending SVG+separate conversion instead). However, it doesn't disclose other important behavioral traits like error conditions, performance characteristics, or what happens when the file already exists. The note about SVG conversion adds useful context beyond basic functionality.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by a helpful note. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first. The parenthetical note provides valuable context without unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a file export tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It states the purpose and includes a practical limitation note, but doesn't cover important aspects like what the tool returns, error handling, or performance considerations. For a tool that writes files to the filesystem, more behavioral context would be helpful, though the concise description covers the essentials.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (filePath, scale, background) with their descriptions, types, constraints, and defaults. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'PNG 파일로 내보냅니다' (Exports to PNG file). This is a specific verb+resource combination that indicates it creates PNG files. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_svg' or 'export_data_uri' beyond the note about SVG conversion.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: 'PNG 파일로 내보냅니다' (Exports to PNG file). The parenthetical note offers guidance about current limitations: '(참고: 현재는 SVG를 저장하고 별도 변환 도구 사용 권장)' (Note: Currently, it's recommended to save as SVG and use a separate conversion tool). This gives practical advice about alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly name when NOT to use this tool versus other export options.

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