export_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It correctly states the export behavior and format determination, but does not mention side effects like file overwriting, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only. The behavior is adequately disclosed but lacks depth.

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 concise: one line of summary followed by a clear args list. No unnecessary words. Structured for quick parsing by AI agents.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description could mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status or file path). It also lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., sprite must be open) and error conditions. However, for a simple export tool, it covers the essential input semantics.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for all 4 parameters: filename (Aseprite file), tag_name (animation tag), output_filename (output path with format indicated by extension), scale (integer default 1). This goes beyond what schema types/titles provide.

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 'Export the frames of an animation tag as a GIF or PNG sequence', which uses a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'export_frame' (single frame) and 'export_sprite' (full sprite) by focusing on animation tags.

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 implies use for exporting animation tags into GIF or PNG, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'export_sprite' or 'export_spritesheet'. However, the context of the tool name and description makes the usage context clear enough for an AI agent.

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