export_node_as_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It does not disclose return format, side effects, required permissions, or behavior around scale/format handling. The agent would not know what the export produces (e.g., a URL, base64, or file path) without additional information.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or any important behavioral details. It does not mention the response format, upload behavior, or any constraints. This is insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and expectations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (nodeId, scale, format), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('a node') with a clear output ('as an image'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_node_info (which reads info) and create_rectangle (which creates) by focusing on the export action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. With many sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing, leaving the agent without direction on choosing this export tool.

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