export_to_react

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level output and does not reveal whether this operation is read-only, whether it mutates the document, how the node tree is traversed, what limitations exist, or what the generated code output looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: it names the action, output, and source. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it appropriately concise for a simple generation 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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many closely related export/code-generation siblings, the description is too sparse. It lacks return-format expectations, side-effect information, and any differentiation from alternatives, so the agent may not know what to expect after invoking it.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already document nodeId, framework, and componentName. The tool description adds only the general context that input comes from a Figma node tree, which is helpful but not substantial additional semantics 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 clearly states a specific action ('Generate'), a specific output ('React + Tailwind code'), and an input source ('Figma node tree'). It is distinct from asset-export siblings like export_as_svg and export_as_png, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from other code-generation or export tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related alternatives such as generate_stylesheet, export_design_specs, export_tokens, or export_as_svg. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so the agent must infer appropriate usage from context.

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