Convert the current 2D CAD scene to DWG by generating a DXF and using LibreDWG's dxf2dwg, returning base64 bytes or writing to a specified path.
Export the current 2D scene to DWG by writing a DXF and converting via LibreDWG's dxf2dwg. Returns base64 DWG bytes; pass path to also write to disk. Run dwg_tools_status to confirm dxf2dwg is installed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| entity_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the DXF intermediate step, LibreDWG dependency, base64 return value, and optional disk write via `path`. It still omits overwrite behavior, error handling, and whether `entity_ids` narrows the export scope.
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 front-loaded: it leads with what the tool does, then return/disk behavior, then prerequisite. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.
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?
It explains the return value and external dependency despite having no output schema, but it leaves `entity_ids` completely unexplained and says nothing about failure modes or how exporting a subset of entities affects the scene.
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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It clarifies `path` as an optional disk-write target, but `entity_ids` is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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 verb and resource: exporting the current 2D scene to DWG. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the DXF-to-DWG conversion pipeline via `dxf2dwg`, so an agent can separate it from `export_dxf` and other export tools.
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 clear prerequisite: run `dwg_tools_status` to confirm `dxf2dwg` is installed. This is useful routing guidance, but it does not explicitly say when to choose `export_dwg` over `export_dxf` or other export formats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.