export_gif

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool exports an animated GIF but does not mention critical behaviors like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific project states, has performance implications, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves file I/O and processing.

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 extremely concise with a single, front-loaded phrase ('Export as animated GIF') that directly conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, file path), error conditions, or behavioral details like file overwriting. For a tool with 3 parameters and potential side effects, this lacks necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 parameters (projectId, outputPath, frameDelay) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying animation via 'animated GIF', which relates to frameDelay but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints beyond the schema.

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 ('Export') and the output format ('animated GIF'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'export_png' or 'export_sprite_sheet', which would require mentioning format differences or use cases.

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 like 'export_png' or 'export_sprite_sheet'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing project with frames, or exclusions, like not being suitable for static images.

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