xd_export_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does very little with it. It never says whether the tool only reads the .xd file, that assetsDir causes files to be written to disk, what the size/depth auto-reduction behavior means in practice, or what errors occur for an unknown component name. Only the output-format cross-reference to xd_export_artboard is added context.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler; the resource and its two cross-references are front-loaded and the whole definition scans in one pass. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 should say what an export returns, and it only delegates that to "same format as xd_export_artboard," which an agent cannot read without already knowing that sibling. Parameter coverage from the schema is strong, so the remaining gap is the return/side-effect story rather than the inputs.

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 file, depth, assetsDir, and component are all documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a small hint that "component" values come from xd_list_components, but nothing about depth, asset folder constraints, or name-vs-symbolId ambiguity for the component parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Export one component master") with a clear scope of exactly one component, and disambiguates from siblings by pointing at xd_list_components for discovery and xd_export_artboard for the output shape. An agent can distinguish this from xd_list_components, xd_extract_assets, and xd_export_artboard without opening any 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?

The parenthetical "(see xd_list_components)" tells the agent where component identifiers come from, which is the key prerequisite, and "same format as xd_export_artboard" tells it what to expect. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative for exporting something other than a component master, so it falls short of a full routing statement.

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