export_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Export nodes as images' without mentioning any side effects, such as whether files are saved locally, any destructive actions, rate limits, or authorization requirements. As a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 very concise (one short sentence), but this is at the expense of providing necessary details. It could be improved without becoming overly verbose.

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 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not cover return value format, error cases, limitations (e.g., maximum node count), or any other contextual information needed for correct usage.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to parameters beyond the formats listed in the purpose. It does not explain what file_key or node_ids are, nor the role of scale or available format values (despite enum not being used). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Export' and the resource 'nodes', listing supported image formats (PNG, JPG, SVG, PDF). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on retrieving data or listing components/styles.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_frame_nodes or list_components. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts where other tools are more appropriate, or when export is not suitable.

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