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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds genuinely useful context: the result is a ZIP link and the export bundles design tokens and assets. It still omits whether the ZIP is persisted, whether the link expires, and whether export is asynchronous — notable gaps for a write-ish operation.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical format list is dense but earns its place by conveying output options.

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 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell what `file` or `artboards` expect, whether an export is immediate or a background job, or how the ZIP link is delivered.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, yet it mentions only the format options and never maps them to the `format` parameter. The `file` parameter (what file? a project? a source?) and `artboards` selection semantics (IDs vs names, defaults) are completely unexplained.

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 and resource ('Export screens as code') and enumerates the supported output formats (HTML, React, SwiftUI, Compose, Flutter, SVG), which tells an agent exactly what it produces. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like export_artboard or export_document, so an agent must infer which export variant is appropriate.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over export_artboard, export_document, or draw_svg, nor any prerequisites (e.g., an active project or selected artboards). The agent is left to guess the selection criteria from the sibling list alone.

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