export_code

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, how long it might take, or what the response format is (e.g., code string, file save, or something else). The phrase 'directly into production-ready code' is vague and does not clarify the operational behavior.

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 sentence that gets straight to the point, with the verb and resource front-loaded. It is efficient and easy to parse. It could be slightly more structured by listing formats as a bullet list, but the current form is concise and readable.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, and the presence of sibling tools that generate code, this description is incomplete. It does not tell the agent what the tool returns, whether it mutates anything, or how it relates to sibling code-generation tools. An agent would lack essential information to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameters; it only mentions 'layer hierarchies' which relates to nodeId indirectly. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not conflict with it.

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 states a specific action ('transpiles'), a clear resource ('Paper nodes and layer hierarchies'), and the exact output forms (SwiftUI, React + Tailwind, Flutter, CSS Tokens). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools that target assets, PDFs, or JSON, and from code-oriented tools like get_jsx or write_html by covering multiple production-ready formats.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_jsx, write_html, or export. No context is provided about the intended use case, limitations, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice. The description leaves the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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