sw_export_active

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the action and formats but omits important behavioral details such as output file behavior, overwrite policies, path defaults, or format-specific side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the verb and resource, then adds the essential format list, making it easy to scan and process.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core invocation context: active document and accepted formats. It leaves save_as_name semantics and side-effect details undocumented, which is a minor gap given the tool's low complexity.

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 description adds meaning to the required 'format' parameter by listing valid format values, which is valuable given the schema has an unconstrained string with no enum. However, it does not explain the 'save_as_name' parameter or its null default, so parameter coverage is only partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export'), identifies the resource ('active SolidWorks document'), and enumerates the supported target formats. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling create, review, and info 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?

The description clearly states the tool is for exporting the currently active SolidWorks document, which provides an unambiguous usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but no sibling tool overlaps with this export responsibility.

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