export_design_system

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what the operation returns (ZIP file, JSON bundle, path?), whether it is read-only, whether it triggers generation, or how long/complex the export can be. 'Exports' implies generation, but the exact observable behavior is undisclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and object, and the second sentence adds a concrete purpose. There is no filler or 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?

For a tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it names the artifact and contents. However, it omits return format, output destination, and any performance or limitation caveats, which the agent would need for a confident call.

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 even without parameter details in the description. The description does add useful conceptual grouping by naming tokens, components, documentation, and assets, which maps to includeTokens, includeComponents, and includeDocumentation. Still, it does not explain enums or defaults beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies a specific action — 'Exports a complete design system package from project screens' — and names the composed contents (tokens, components, documentation, assets). It does not explicitly differentiate from direct siblings like export_all_screens or generate_style_guide, but the package-level framing suggests a distinct deliverable.

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 phrase 'Ready for developer handoff' implies a meaningful use case, so this is not without guidance. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., that project screens exist), and no mention of when a lighter-weight sibling such as export_all_screens might be preferred.

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