export_frame

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that a file is written, but it does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, what happens when format is omitted, or whether the sequence must be open or loaded. These are meaningful operational behaviors for an export tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the available space could have also addressed a key behavioral or default-format detail without losing conciseness.

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 simple four-parameter tool, the description plus full schema coverage give an agent enough to attempt a call. However, with no annotations and no output schema, important operational details remain missing: optional-format default, overwrite behavior, and what the tool returns or reports on success.

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 describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter nuance, such as how outputPath interacts with format or what the default format is when format is omitted.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it exports a single frame from a sequence as an image file. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_sequence or export_as_fcp_xml, which perform broader or different types of exports.

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 this tool is for extracting one frame as an image, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparisons with alternatives. With many export-related siblings, an explicit pointer would strengthen routing.

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