export

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses real behavior: hidden and reference layers are omitted, the 'frames' kind requires {frame} in the output path, and gif supports transparency vs background, palettes, per-frame durations and looping. However it never mentions that overwriting existing files is off by default or what the tool returns, which matters for a file-writing tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the format enumeration comes first and each clause adds a distinct constraint. The 'Export without Aseprite.' opener is slightly confusing on its own, and the single-run-on paragraph makes scanning harder than a short list would.

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 14-parameter, mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the highest-complexity options well but leaves several parameters (path, output, tag, scale, frames, overwrite) entirely implicit, so an agent still needs to guess at required-vs-optional semantics and file-clobbering behavior.

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 0% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for kind, layers, layout/columns/padding, background, loop and hints at data_output via 'optional JSON frame data', but path, output, tag, scale, frames, and overwrite receive no explanation at all.

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?

Names a specific verb (export) and enumerates the output formats (gif, png, frames, sheet) with their distinguishing traits, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like verify_with_aseprite or import_strip. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, keeping it out of the 5 tier.

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 opener 'Export without Aseprite' hints that it is the non-Aseprite export path, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over verify_with_aseprite, live_open, or the other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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