export_map_as_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Reads the .aprx project and writes out_png' which indicates file operations. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the description is sufficient for a non-destructive export action.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or structural issues.

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?

The description covers purpose, use cases, and key parameters. Though an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not explain return values. For a straightforward export tool, it is sufficiently complete given the schema details.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (width, height, etc.). The description adds only a summary ('writes out_png with the requested width, height, and resolution'), which does not significantly enhance understanding. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema description coverage.

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's action: 'Export a map view directly to a PNG image using the map defaultView, without requiring a layout.' It distinguishes from sibling layout-based export tools (export_layout_png, export_layout_pdf) by specifying no layout needed.

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 usage context: 'Use this for quick map snapshots, previews, or automated image generation when a formal layout is unnecessary.' It implies when not to use (when a layout is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternative tools.

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