dxf_export

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the rendering is approximate and not identical to the AutoCAD plotter, and no AutoCAD installation is needed. It does not disclose that the target output file may be overwritten, which is the one mutation detail the destructiveHint warrants.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by clearly labeled QUANDO USAR, Parâmetros, Exemplo and Observação blocks; every section is short and earns its place. The only minor redundancy is that output's allowed extensions appear both in the usage sentence and in the parameter list.

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 5-parameter tool the description covers the non-obvious arguments, gives a worked example, and flags the fidelity limitation; an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The gaps are the ambiguity of `path` (disk file vs. active document) and the absence of any statement about overwriting an existing output file.

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 carry the load, and it largely does: it explains output extensions (.pdf/.png/.svg), layout semantics (omit for model), dpi bounds (30-600), and the meaning of background='white' vs 'default'. Only `path` is left undefined (filesystem path vs. a document already open in the session), which is why this is not a 5.

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+resource (render DXF model or layout to PDF/PNG/SVG) and even names the engine (ezdxf + matplotlib) and the fact that AutoCAD is not required. It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling plot_to_pdf, which appears to overlap on the PDF output case.

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?

'QUANDO USAR: gerar PDF de entrega ou imagem de pré-visualização' gives an explicit usage scenario and ties format selection to the `output` extension. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, and the obvious sibling plot_to_pdf is not addressed, so the agent must still infer which of the two export-style tools to pick.

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