export_frame

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Export') but does not mention file overwrite behavior, required permissions, return values, or side effects like creating directories. This is a significant gap for a file-writing operation.

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 sentence of eight words, fully front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action but omits details like supported image formats (reliant on extension), error conditions (e.g., nonexistent path), and relationship to sibling tools. Completeness is average.

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% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('output_path' and 'time_seconds'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline 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 'Export the current frame as an image file' clearly states the verb (Export) and resource (current frame), differentiating it from siblings like 'export_sequence' (exports full sequence) or 'capture_frame' (which may capture to clipboard). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 such as 'capture_frame', 'freeze_frame', or 'add_to_render_queue'. It does not explain typical use cases or limitations, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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