Export Excalidraw canvas

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal meaningful behavior: it opens the export view and triggers a download in one of three formats. It does not, however, mention side effects, whether the original canvas is modified, where the file is saved, or what the agent should expect as a result.

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 with no filler or redundancy. Every component—opening the export view, downloading, and listing the three formats—earns its place, and the most important information is presented immediately.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important context gaps. It does not state what the tool returns after the download, how the agent can confirm success, or how this differs from closely related sibling tools such as save_canvas_copy, capture_canvas, or pull_canvas. A tool with three required parameters and a large sibling family needs more contextual grounding.

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?

The schema already documents projectPath and canvasPath with examples and constraints, and format has an enum of json/svg/png. The description reinforces the format parameter by naming JSON, SVG, and PNG, but it adds no new meaning for the path parameters. With roughly 67% schema coverage, a middle score is appropriate because the description partially compensates for the format parameter's lack of prose.

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 a specific action: opens the export View and downloads the saved canvas as JSON, SVG, or PNG. It names both the resource (canvas) and the supported output formats, which conveys the core purpose. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like save_canvas_copy or capture_canvas, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies when the tool should be used: whenever a user wants the canvas exported/downloaded as JSON, SVG, or PNG. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool would be a better fit, such as save_canvas_copy for copying a canvas or capture_canvas for a visual snapshot.

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