Export Atlas

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent. The description adds behavioral context on file output: single vs multiple files per format. It does not detail overwrite behavior or directory requirements, but overall adds meaningful transparency beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then key details on formats and prerequisite. Efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers the main behavior and format details, plus the prerequisite. It lacks specifics on dpi, layout_name, and output path existence/permissions, but is sufficient for basic use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially: it explains format (pdf vs images) and output_path (file vs directory). However, it omits layout_name and dpi (which has a default of 300), leaving these parameters undocumented.

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 exports a configured atlas, distinguishes PDF vs image format output behavior, and mentions the prerequisite configure_atlas. Among siblings, it is distinct from export_layout and configure_atlas.

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 explicitly states to call configure_atlas first, and explains format choices (PDF for single file, images for per-feature). However, it does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives like export_layout.

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