Export Design as Code

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral detail about what each export format contains (e.g., CSS variables, component markup, SFC code), going beyond the annotations and schema.

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 well-organized with a clear lead sentence, a bulleted list of formats, an Args section, and a concrete example. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 single-parameter, read-only export tool, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, the supported formats with their outputs, the parameter format, and provides an example. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes the expected outputs.

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?

Although the schema already specifies the 'format' parameter with an enum, the description provides meaningful semantic context for each enum value (e.g., 'html: Complete standalone HTML file with CSS variables and all component markup'). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('current design as code'). It enumerates supported formats (html, react, vue, figma_tokens) and explains what each produces, which distinguishes it from all sibling tools.

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 usage (e.g., export design as HTML or React) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusionary or alternative guidance is given, though the format list provides some contextual clarity.

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