utmt-export-entity

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral output details (PNG frames for sprites, ogg/wav for sounds, decompiled .gml for code, PNG for textures). However, it does not mention side effects such as file overwriting, directory creation, or the need for cliPath, leaving some behaviors undisclosed.

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 three sentences, each contributing necessary information: first states the core action, second lists supported types, third specifies output formats. It is compact, front-loaded, and free of redundant wording.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers essential operational context: supported entity types and their export formats. Minor gaps exist, such as not explaining the role of cliPath or what happens at the output path, but these are documented in the schema, and the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as the nuance that 'name' can be an index for embeddedtexture (which is already in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Export') and resource ('a single entity from a GameMaker data file to disk'). It lists supported entity types and their output formats, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'utmt-list-entities' or 'utmt-get-entity' by its explicit export-to-disk action.

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 (whenever you need to export a single entity to disk) but does not explicitly compare it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'utmt-get-entity' or 'utmt-decompile-code' are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer differentiation from the description alone.

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