export_design_specs

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says it generates a document, but omits what the output looks like (whether it returns a string, file path, or downloads), whether it operates on a single node or recursively includes children, and any side effects. The agent has too little information to predict the tool's behavior confidently.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with two parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what a 'design specifications document' entails, whether it is a Markdown/JSON/HTML file (though the `format` param indicates it), or how it differs from similar export tools. Missing usage context leaves the agent ill-equipped to select this tool appropriately.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (nodeId, format). The description adds no additional insight beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 specific action ('Generate design specifications document') with a clear purpose ('for developer handoff'). This distinguishes it from asset exports like export_as_svg or code generation like export_to_react, making the tool's role 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many related tools (e.g., export_tokens, generate_stylesheet, create_spec_sheet) but the description does not clarify when this specific export is preferred, leaving the agent to infer based on the name.

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