figma_export_images

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details: node_ids conversion, token handling, and free-tier limitation. No contradiction with annotations. Beyond annotations, it discloses the batched call suggestion and file formats.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, compact but informative. Minor language mixing (German/English) is acceptable. No fluff.

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?

Covers core functionality and critical constraints (rate limit). However, lacks explanation of return values (e.g., success, file paths) and does not detail all parameters (file_key, output_dir). With 6 parameters and no output schema, more completeness is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains node_ids format and token, mentions format and scale defaults, but does not describe file_key or output_dir beyond implying output_dir is the destination. Partial but incomplete coverage.

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 tool exports Figma frames/components as PNG/SVG and loads them to an output directory, specifically for game UI. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings.

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?

Provides guidance on node_ids format (from Figma URL, '-' to ':'), token source (parameter or FIGMA_TOKEN), and a critical rate limit warning suggesting batching. However, it does not compare with the sibling tool figma_get_outline or specify when to use this tool over alternatives.

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