export_svg

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. '내보냅니다' (export) implies a write operation that creates a file, but the description doesn't mention what happens if the file already exists, what permissions are needed, whether this is a destructive operation, or what happens on success/failure. 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 extremely concise - just one short sentence in Korean. While this is efficient, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity (file export with parameters). However, every word serves a purpose and there's no wasted text.

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 file export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what gets exported (current SVG content? selection?), what format the output takes, error conditions, or success indicators. Given the complexity of file operations and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete context.

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 both parameters (filePath and minify) with their descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter 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 action ('내보냅니다' meaning 'export') and the resource ('SVG 파일' meaning 'SVG file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling export tools like export_png or export_code, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. There are multiple export tools in the sibling list (export_png, export_code, export_data_uri), but the description doesn't mention any of them or provide context about when SVG export is appropriate versus other formats.

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