Export Layout

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

The annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, which is not contradicted, but the description lacks additional behavioral details such as file overwrite behavior, error handling for missing layouts, or return value. Minimal transparency beyond the annotation.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key parameters. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines), but it is efficient with no redundant words.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and only idempotent annotation, the description is incomplete. It covers two parameters but leaves required ones undocumented. No mention of return values (e.g., success path), so the agent lacks full context for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'format' (listing allowed values 'pdf', 'png', 'jpg', 'svg') and 'dpi' (resolution with default 300), adding meaning. However, it omits 'layout_name' and 'path', which are required, so only partial 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 print layout to file') and lists the main parameters. The name 'export_layout' aligns perfectly with the purpose, and among sibling tools, none duplicate this function, making it highly distinguishable.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions (e.g., existence of layout). Sibling tools like 'render_map' or 'create_layout' are not compared, so the context is absent.

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