Export 2D entities to DXF in millimeters, optionally filtering by entity_ids to write only selected geometry.
Export 2D entities to DXF (internal mm). Optional entity_ids limits which entities are written.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 at all, the description carries the full burden and mostly does not. It discloses the unit system (internal mm), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about where the file is written, whether an existing file is overwritten, or what the call returns.
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 compact sentences, no redundancy, and the core purpose plus unit convention are front-loaded ahead of the optional-parameter note. Nothing extraneous.
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 simple one-optional-parameter export with no output schema, the description covers purpose, units, and parameter scope. It still omits the output destination and return value, which an agent calling an export tool reasonably needs to know.
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% and the single parameter has no schema documentation, but the description compensates: it explains that entity_ids is optional and that supplying it restricts the export to those entities. That is the essential semantic meaning for this 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 2D entities to DXF) and adds the unit convention, so the agent knows exactly what the tool emits. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling exporters (export_dwg, export_step, export_svg), which would have been easy to do.
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 indication of when to choose DXF over the sibling export formats, nor any prerequisite or precondition. The sentence about entity_ids is scope, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.