export_map_as_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions reading the .aprx project and writing out_png, but does not disclose whether the tool modifies the project file, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. However, the tool is export-only and non-destructive, so the description is adequate.

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 two sentences: first explains what the tool does, second explains when to use it. It is concise and front-loaded, but slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points or separate sections) could improve readability for 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?

With 7 parameters (1 required) and an output schema present, the description covers the main purpose and use case. It could mention PathGuard constraints or overwrite behavior, but those are detailed in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an export tool.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions in the input schema). According to the rules, baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'using the map defaultView' and mention of 'quick snapshots' but does not provide additional parameter-specific information beyond the schema.

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 verb 'export', the resource 'map view as PNG image', and specifies it uses the default view without requiring a layout. It distinguishes from layout-based exports by explicitly comparing to formal layouts.

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 when to use the tool: 'for quick map snapshots, previews, or automated image generation when a formal layout is unnecessary.' This implies the alternative (use layout export) when a formal layout is needed. It does not name sibling tools like export_layout_png explicitly, but the context is clear.

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