export_as_png

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only states the basic operation. It does not say what the output is (file, URL, base64), whether any side effects occur, what the 'scale' factor does beyond the schema's default, or any prerequisites (e.g., node must be visible). This leaves the agent to guess about the return type and runtime behavior, which is a significant gap for a tool that produces an artifact.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the essential action. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, which is appropriate for a simple operation. However, the brevity edges toward under-specification, so it does not earn a perfect score.

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 tool that exports a file, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what happens with the exported PNG (returned as data, saved to disk, etc.), the output format details, or how the 'scale' parameter affects the output dimensions. Given the lack of an output schema and the tool's purpose of producing a visible result, an agent needs more context to use it correctly. The presence of many sibling export tools further indicates that differentiation is required, which is absent.

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?

The schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (nodeId and scale), and context signals indicate 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it meets the baseline of 3 without enhancing or compensating 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 states a clear action ('Export') on a specific resource ('a node') and specifies the output format ('PNG'). It distinguishes the tool from adjacent export tools like export_as_svg and export_to_react by naming the format, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. Despite being minimal, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling export and generation tools (e.g., export_as_svg, export_design_specs, screenshot). The description simply states what it does without any context about selection criteria, special cases, or alternatives. An agent would have to infer usage based on the format alone.

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