export_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it exports from 3ds Max, supports multiple formats, allows selection scope, and returns a structured result dict. It covers key aspects like success status and message, though it could add more on permissions, file overwriting, or error handling.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, supported formats, scope, args, returns, examples) and front-loaded key information. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise by integrating some details (e.g., format list in args) more tightly.

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 complexity (export tool with format and scope options), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and examples. However, it could improve by mentioning potential side effects (e.g., file system changes) or integration with sibling tools like 'import_file' for a fuller context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so excellently: it explains both parameters ('file_path' and 'selected_only') in detail, including format support, default values, and usage examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, fully documenting the parameters.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('从 3ds Max 导出场景或选中的对象到文件') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on export functionality. It specifies the resource (scenes or selected objects from 3ds Max) and the action (export to file), making it immediately distinguishable from import, creation, or manipulation tools in the sibling list.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (exporting from 3ds Max) and mentions supported formats and scope options (all objects vs. selected only). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., compared to 'import_file' or 'save_scene'), which prevents a perfect score.

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