export_typography

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the scope ('all text styles') but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether it reads local vs. library styles, or what the returned artifact looks like beyond the schema's format enum.

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 or repetition. It could be more informative, but the compactness itself is a strength and matches the apparent simplicity of the 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 export utility, the core semantics are present: export all text styles in a chosen format. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not state what the returned typography system contains or how it scopes to local versus team styles.

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 single optional parameter 'format' is fully described in the schema with an enum and a default, so schema description coverage is complete. The description adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a concrete action ('Export'), a specific resource ('all text styles'), and the output shape ('a typography system'). It is unambiguous on its own, but it does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as generate_stylesheet, export_design_specs, or export_tokens.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state whether it is for local text styles only, or when generate_stylesheet or export_tokens would be more appropriate, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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