Export Node Image

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), description adds important details: return format differences (SVG raw XML in 'svg', others base64 in 'imageData', PDF as delivery artifact). No contradictions; fully transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core action and formats, then succinctly explains return types and recommendations. No waste.

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?

Simple tool with 3 params, required nodeId, and output schema exists. Description covers purpose, behavior, format nuances, and preference guidance—fully adequate.

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 already has 100% coverage with good descriptions for each parameter. Description adds no additional semantic info about parameters beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Render a node to an image (PNG/JPG/SVG/PDF) at a given scale', specifying verb, resource, and formats. It is distinct from sibling tools (all other tools are editing/querying, not exporting), so no confusion.

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?

'Read-only; the canonical way to visually verify edits' gives clear context for when to use. Also advises format preferences (PNG/SVG for inspection). However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, which are not needed given uniqueness.

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