download_assets

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the output shape: { export, rawImages, svgAssets }, and notes cross-file transfer intent. However, it does not mention auth requirements, possible empty arrays, latency, or failure modes. For a non-destructive download, the disclosed output is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three short labeled lines—Do what, Expected output, Use when—make the purpose immediately clear. Information is front-loaded, there is no filler, and every sentence 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?

Even without an output schema, the description provides an explicit expected output shape and clear usage scenarios. The schema covers most parameters. The main gaps are the absence of explicit alternatives and operational caveats, but for a straightforward asset-download tool it is largely complete.

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 75%, and the schema already documents nodeId, defaultScale, and defaultFormat. The description adds no parameter-level detail and fileKey remains undocumented, but it does not need to restate what the schema already covers. Neutral contribution.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Downloads rendered exports and raw source images/SVGs for a single node.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from broader file-level or screenshot-related siblings. The expected output line further reinforces the exact purpose.

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 'Use when' section explicitly names concrete scenarios: needing a rendered PNG/SVG/PDF of a node or extracting embedded raster fills for cross-file transfer. It gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not name alternative sibling tools or describe when not to use them.

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