Download Assets

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, so the description usefully adds the payload composition (three asset categories), the per-category cap of 20, and the default format/scale behavior. It still does not say where the downloaded files land or what happens when a node has more than 20 fills, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two dense sentences with the returned asset categories front-loaded and the format/scale controls second. The format list partially duplicates the schema enum, which is the only minor redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the three asset groups and their limits. It omits the current-selection fallback for nodeId and any note that fileKey is ignored in practice, but the core call path is covered.

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 coverage is 50%: nodeId and fileKey are documented in-schema, while defaultFormat and defaultScale are not. The description fills that gap by naming the accepted formats (png, jpg, svg, pdf) and stating the default (png at scale 1), so it compensates for the undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (Download) and resource (assets for a single node) and enumerates exactly what comes back: export, rawImages, svgAssets with caps. It is clear what the tool does, though it never differentiates itself from close siblings like get_screenshot or save_design_export.

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?

'for a single node' implies the scope of use and the cap of 20 per asset type hints at bulk behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to get_screenshot / save_design_export / import_design_export. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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