export

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool writes to disk and that the exporter depends on the file extension, but it does not disclose side effects such as file overwriting, error handling, required permissions, or what happens if the path is invalid. It also does not describe the return value or success/failure behavior.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and the key behavior (exporter selection by extension). It avoids unnecessary words, but it sacrifices detail for brevity, omitting information about parameters and behavior that would improve utility.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the format parameter, the meaning of handles, or what happens when handles is null. It also lacks information about file paths, potential errors, or expected results. An agent would likely need additional external knowledge to use this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implicitly references the handles parameter ('or just the given handles') and the path parameter (via extension), but it does not explain the format parameter at all, nor does it clarify the semantics of handles (e.g., what handles are expected or that null means whole scene). An agent would be unsure about the format argument and whether it overrides the extension.

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 the action: 'Export the scene (or just the given handles) to disk.' It specifies the resource (scene/handles) and the destination (disk), and it hints at the mechanism (exporter chosen by file extension). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like save_scene, which also writes to disk, leaving some ambiguity about when export is the right choice.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tool or condition that would prefer another operation. It only implies usage by stating the exporter is chosen via file extension, but it does not explain scenarios where export is appropriate versus save_scene or other tools.

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