Export Layout

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

The annotations indicate idempotency (idempotentHint=true), which is consistent with an export operation. However, the description does not disclose key behavioral traits such as whether existing files are overwritten, error behavior on invalid paths, or if directories are created automatically. It only mentions parameter defaults.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the core action. However, the second sentence reads as a parameter list rather than a proper sentence, slightly reducing readability. Every word serves a purpose.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete. It omits semantics for two required parameters and provides no information about return values, side effects, or error behavior. An AI agent would lack sufficient detail to use the tool confidently.

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 0% description coverage, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining parameters. It partially explains 'format' and 'dpi' (with defaults and options) but fails to explain the required parameters 'layout_name' and 'path', leaving their meaning unclear.

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 ('Export a print layout to file') and specifies the resource (print layout). It lists supported formats (pdf, png, jpg, svg), which adds specificity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like export_atlas or render_map, which could cause confusion for an AI agent choosing between them.

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 does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool (e.g., export_atlas for atlas exports) would be more appropriate.

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