export_as_svg

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and only tells us the output format. It doesn't disclose whether export is read-only, how the markup is returned, or what happens with unsupported features. For an export tool this is a noticeable 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?

One short sentence with no filler. The verb, object, and output format are all present, making it an appropriately sized description for such a simple 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?

For a one-parameter, single-purpose tool this is close to sufficient. However, without annotations it doesn't mention return value shape, whether the SVG includes children/styles, or when to choose it over similar exports, leaving the agent to infer those details.

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 documents nodeId as 'Node to export' with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline.

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 names a concrete action ('Export'), a specific resource ('a node'), and an unambiguous output format ('SVG markup'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling export tools like export_as_png or export_to_react.

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 intended use is implied: when SVG markup of a node is needed. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over export_as_png, export_to_react, or other exports, nor does it state any exclusions.

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