导出白板快照

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral facts beyond them: the plain snapshot path requires an API call, the includeArchive path returns image/file archive as Base64 without the API, and there is an 8 MiB size ceiling. This is well above the annotation baseline.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary return (snapshot + download URL) before the conditional archive behavior. Every clause carries information (return type, API requirement, size limit, fallback); no 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?

With an output schema present, return shapes need not be spelled out, yet the description adds the useful operational constraints (API requirement, 8 MiB limit, app-export fallback) for a read-only tool. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it omits how the result compares to the lighter thumbnail sibling.

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 coverage is 50%: boardId is documented in the schema, includeArchive is not. The description compensates by explaining exactly what includeArchive=true does (returns an image/file archive as Base64, API-free) and its size constraint, so the uncovered parameter is meaningfully explained.

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 output-oriented purpose: it returns a full snapshot plus a .moki ZIP download URL, with an alternate Base64 archive mode. This is clear enough to distinguish the tool's function from most siblings (which mutate or list). It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with near-alternatives like whiteboard_get_thumbnail.

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?

It gives conditional guidance: use includeArchive=true to avoid the API, and fall back to app export for boards over 8 MiB. That is real when-to-use context, including an exclusion. However, it never tells the agent how this differs from sibling retrieval tools such as whiteboard_get_thumbnail, so cross-tool selection is left to inference.

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