export_geojson

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful behaviors: only 2D entities are exported, and layer plus properties metadata is preserved in the output. However, it says nothing about where the file is written, whether an existing file at 'path' is overwritten, or what happens to 3D entities in the selection.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, scope, output format, and metadata guarantee packed in with zero filler. Nothing needs trimming and the key information leads.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, zero parameter documentation, and two optional parameters whose omission behavior is unspecified, the description is too thin. It never clarifies what a call without 'path' or 'entity_ids' does, nor how filtering and file output interact.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: 'path' (output destination) and 'entity_ids' (which entities to export) are never explained or even referenced. The only oblique hint is the '2D entities' scope wording, which loosely maps to the entity selection.

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 (Export), resource (2D entities), and output format (GeoJSON FeatureCollection), which differentiates it from the many other export_* siblings such as export_step, export_svg, and export_shapefile. It stops short of explicitly naming the nearest alternative (export_shapefile) for the same geospatial domain.

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 phrase '2D entities' implies a scope constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over export_shapefile or export_dxf, and no prerequisite information (e.g. CRS setup). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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