xd_export_artboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that positions are parent-relative, that images are only referenced by imageRef unless assetsDir is passed (a real side effect), and that depth may be auto-reduced. It does not explicitly frame the operation as read-only versus file-writing, which is the main residual gap.

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?

Purpose and the key usage rule are front-loaded, and the long element-type enumeration justifies itself by telling the agent what fidelity to expect. It is dense but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned JSON contents and describing image handling and relative positioning. Minor omissions remain, such as default depth behavior or the effect of allowed-root restrictions on assetsDir.

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 already 100%, so a 3 is the floor; the description earns above that by explaining the practical semantics of nodeId (sub-layer export for big screens) and assetsDir (saved as imageRef.ext) beyond the schema's wording.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Full-fidelity export of one artboard ... as clean JSON') and enumerates exactly what the JSON contains, which implicitly separates it from the listing/reading siblings like xd_get_artboard and the component-specific xd_export_component. An agent knows precisely what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a concrete usage rule ('For big screens, export a sub-layer with nodeId') and names the trigger condition. It does not explicitly contrast against siblings such as xd_export_component or xd_extract_assets, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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