Export DesignIR

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Export' without describing what the export produces, whether it is a file, data blob, or stream, or any side effects. There is no mention of authentication, permissions, or reversibility. The behavior is opaque beyond the basic action.

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, direct sentence that starts with the action verb and covers the core resource and output. It is efficient with zero waste, and the structure is appropriate for a simple export 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?

The tool has 3 parameters, none required, but the interaction between scope and screenId is not explained. An agent would not know that selecting scope 'screen' necessitates screenId. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the return format, but it does not. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this description is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the parameters at all. It mentions 'one screen' but does not connect it to the screenId parameter, nor does it clarify when host is needed or the meaning of the scope enum. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's enum values.

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 the action (Export) and the resource (document, current selection, or one screen) and the output format (DesignIR). It distinguishes the three scopes via the enum, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from the sibling context-getting 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for exporting DesignIR data rather than getting context, nor does it reference any sibling tools like get_design_context or get_visual_context. The usage context is only implied by the action verb.

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