Export 3d

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating a file-writing/overwriting operation, and the description does not contradict this. However, the description adds no further behavioral context such as whether it overwrites existing files, requires an open board, or any side effects. It only describes the output options, which is more parameter-related than behavioral.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and format list, then efficiently notes the optional inclusions. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 file-export tool with 6 parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose and options. It does not mention prerequisites like an open board or behavior on existing files, but these are partially addressed by the destructiveHint annotation and are not critical for selection.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'optional copper, solder mask, silkscreen and component 3D models' adds a grouped view of the boolean parameters but does not provide meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Export the PCB as a 3D model', enumerates the supported formats (STEP, STL, VRML, OBJ), and lists optional inclusions (copper, solder mask, silkscreen, component 3D models). This distinguishes it from other export tools like export_vrml, export_pdf, and export_3d_cli.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever a 3D model of the PCB is needed, with formats and layer options. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over other export tools.

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