Export design as SVG

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful dependency caveat: pictograms require a collection file and render as plain shapes without it. However, it does not mention other behavioral details such as whether existing output files are overwritten, what happens on failure, or what the tool returns after exporting.

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 with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, and the important dependency caveat is placed second. Every sentence 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?

For a straightforward export tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the main non-obvious dependency. The schema fully documents parameters, and the note about pictograms addresses the most likely source of confusing output. It could be more complete by discussing output behavior or alternatives, but the core context an agent needs to invoke correctly is present.

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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that 'pictograms' requires a collection file from the Diagramming package and that omitting it degrades the visual output. This directly clarifies the pictogram parameter's semantics.

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 purpose: exporting the current plane as an SVG diagram. The verb 'Export' plus the resource 'current plane' and format 'SVG' make the core action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling exporters like poietic_export_plane or poietic_write_dot, so it misses the top score.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an SVG export of the current plane is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool should be selected instead, such as poietic_export_plane for other export needs.

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