export_assets

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether the export traverses nested nodes, whether it modifies anything, what the function returns, or how results are delivered. The core batching and assets/cope are present, but important operational behavior is missing.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, scope, and asset types with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 with only three well-documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate for invocation: agent knows nodeId, optional scale, and optional enum-restricted format. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves outcome/return behavior and the meaning of 'all exportable assets' somewhat ambiguous, so completeness is only moderate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents nodeId, scale, and format with defaults and an enum. The description adds no parameter-level insight beyond the 'node tree' phrasing, but it does not need to compensate because the schema is complete.

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 operation — batch export — and a clear scope: all exportable assets (icons, images) from a node tree. It is not a tautology and is clearly distinguishable from single-asset export tools like export_as_svg or export_as_png, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'Batch export all exportable assets' implies this tool is for exporting multiple assets at once, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance, such as pointing to export_as_svg/export_as_png for single-asset cases. Usage context is implided rather than stated.

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