export_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns URLs rather than image data and references the Figma API. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, URL expiry, or auth requirements (though access_token is in the schema), leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 the main action and formats. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a moderate-complexity export tool with no output schema, the description explains the return type (URLs) and core inputs implicitly. It is sufficient for a basic understanding, though it could benefit from noting that exports may be asynchronous or that URLs are temporary.

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 60% with some descriptions on file_key, node_ids, and access_token. The description adds little beyond listing formats already in the schema enum. It does not clarify scale behavior or node_id format, so it fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool exports Figma nodes as images, lists supported formats (PNG, JPG, SVG, PDF), and notes it returns download URLs. This specific verb+resource clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_accessibility or map_to_react.

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 implies usage context (when image exports are needed), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Since no sibling tool performs similar exports, the purpose is sufficient but not highly explicit.

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