export_svg

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails: it never says whether output goes to the 'path' on disk or is returned inline, whether it is read-only, whether it overwrites an existing file, or what 'SVG-like' means versus real SVG. Nothing beyond a restated purpose.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is terse to the point of being under-specified rather than genuinely efficient. There is no sentence to cut because there is essentially no content.

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 two-parameter export tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description supplies almost nothing an agent needs: not the output destination, not the default entity set, not the relationship to the sibling SVG generators and exporters.

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, and the description explains neither. The meaning of 'path' (output file? directory?) and whether 'entity_ids' is optional (which entities are exported by default when omitted) are left entirely 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?

It states a verb ('Export') and a resource ('entities') plus a target format, but 'SVG-like text' is ambiguous and there is no differentiation from the many sibling exporters (export_dxf, export_step, generate_svg, batch_generate_svg, render_preview_svg). An agent cannot tell from this text whether it writes a file or returns a string.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over generate_svg, batch_generate_svg, render_preview_svg, or the other export_* siblings. No preconditions, no mention of which entities are eligible.

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