export_node_image

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return types (inline image for PNG/JPG, text for SVG) but omits side effects, error conditions (e.g., missing nodeId and empty selection), permissions, or limits. Coverage is moderate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for params and return types), but remains concise and clear.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return behavior. It lacks details on parameter defaults, error handling, and explicit constraints (e.g., maximum file size, read-only nature). Adequate but not fully complete.

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 description must compensate. It explains nodeId can be omitted when using selection, and mentions format and scale implicitly via the export action. However, it does not explain scale defaults (e.g., 1x), format default, or the meaning of scale values beyond the schema constraints.

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 tool exports a node as an image (PNG/JPG/SVG) and distinguishes between inline image vs text return. It specifies node identification via nodeId or current selection, setting it apart from sibling tools like analyze_design or get_canvas_tree.

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 mentions 'via the plugin' but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with other tools. The context is adequate but not detailed.

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