ae_export_frames

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 does disclose the key side effect — frames are queued rather than rendered or written to disk — which meaningfully separates this from a direct export tool. However, it doesn't state how many queue items result (one per frame vs. a single sequence), whether existing queue items are cleared or affected, or that a subsequent ae_start_render call is required.

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?

One 18-word sentence with zero filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the destination qualifier ('to the render queue') precedes any subordinate detail. Every word earns its place.

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 schema is rich and the description states the core queuing outcome, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should also cover usage context and post-invocation expectations. An agent can invoke the tool correctly with schema help, but won't know what to expect afterward — queue contents, whether rendering starts, or the return value.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies even though the description itself adds no parameter-level insight. The schema already documents all six parameters, including units (seconds), defaults (filename_prefix 'frame_', output_template 'Photoshop'), and example template values.

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?

States a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('a range of frames from a composition'), destination ('to the render queue'), and output type ('as still images'). The 'range of frames' and 'still images' qualifiers distinguish it from sibling queue tools like ae_add_to_render_queue and ae_start_render without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 is a single declarative statement with no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like ae_add_to_render_queue, ae_set_output_module, ae_set_render_settings, and ae_start_render available, an agent receives no help deciding which tool fits the task.

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