download_assets

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: three distinct output categories with caps (up to 20 rawImages, up to 20 svgAssets) and default formatting. It omits where downloads land, whether anything is mutated, and error/limit behavior beyond the counts.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the what-is-downloaded inventory is front-loaded before the format/scale controls. Every clause carries information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively substitutes as a return-value spec by naming the three asset groups and their caps, plus format/scale defaults. It stops short of describing response shape or failure modes, but covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% and the two undocumented parameters are exactly the ones the description explains: defaultFormat (png, jpg, svg, pdf) and defaultScale (default png at 1). This meaningfully compensates for the gap, though the scale's 0.01-4 bounds and the fileKey no-op behavior are not restated.

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, then enumerates exactly what is produced: `export`, `rawImages`, and `svgAssets`. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as 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?

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus get_screenshot, save_design_export, or place_image, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the enumerated asset types, leaving the agent to infer the route.

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