export_node_as_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention crucial details such as required permissions (read/write), the format of the returned image (e.g., base64 data, URL), size limits, or what happens if the node ID is invalid. The description is too minimal to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 sentence that is concise and to the point. It contains no extraneous information and is immediately understandable. It is ideally sized for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return value (image data or URL), error handling, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_image_from_node'. This lack of completeness could lead to incorrect expectations.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not clarify the exact meaning of 'scale' (e.g., 2x for retina) or the implications of each format. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 a node as an image from Figma. It specifies the verb 'export' and the resource 'node', making the purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_image_from_node' or 'get_svg', so it loses a point for not distinguishing itself.

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 does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions under which other tools should be used instead. This lack of usage context leaves the agent uninformed about proper selection.

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