extract_plan_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the intent to export to a disk file but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting, permissions), how handle and guid are used, or error scenarios. This is insufficient for the agent to anticipate behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action. It is concise, well-structured, and free of unnecessary detail, earning a top score for efficiency.

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 tool with three required parameters and no schema descriptions, the definition lacks essential details about parameter meanings, usage examples, and expected outputs. The description explains the purpose but not the mechanics, leaving the tool incomplete for correct 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% and the description does not explain the parameters (handle, guid, out_path). Without any elaboration, an agent cannot infer what these values mean or how to populate them, making parameter semantics almost entirely opaque.

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 action: exporting the plan substrate (image) to a file on disk outside the archive for viewing. It identifies the resource and intent with a specific verb, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_plan_image. This makes the purpose understandable but not fully distinct.

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 such as get_plan_image or list_plan_images. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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