Conduit

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, repeatable operations. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the return structure ('Array of objects...') and clarifying that it exports 'from Figma', which implies it's a read operation that doesn't modify the node. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or file size constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the second sentence could be more integrated (e.g., 'Returns an array of image objects with type, data, and mimeType'). Overall, it's efficient but slightly disjointed in structure.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the action, resource, and return format. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on error cases or output variations (e.g., multiple images for complex nodes).

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 100%, with clear documentation for nodeId, format, and scale parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating 'specified format and scale' without providing additional context like format-specific behaviors (e.g., SVG vs. PNG) or scale implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 specific action ('Exports a node as an image'), the resource ('from Figma'), and the key parameters ('specified format and scale'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_image' (which likely retrieves existing images) or 'set_image' (which modifies images) by focusing on export functionality.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid node ID), exclusions (e.g., unsupported node types), or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_svg_vector' or 'get_html' for different export formats. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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