scene_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the output location (screenshots/), the dependency (GLTFExporter must exist in the app), and the fact that failure surfaces an explanatory error. This is meaningful operational context for a tool whose side effect is a written file.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the classification and read-only marker, followed by the destination and the setup caveat. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information.

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 an export tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented 3-parameter schema, the description covers purpose, destination, and the key prerequisite. It omits what a successful call returns (file path/handle), which matters slightly since there is no output schema, but otherwise it is complete enough to invoke 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 100%, so name/uuid/binary are already documented. The description reinforces 'scene or one object' (name/uuid) and 'GLB/glTF' (binary) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Export the scene or one object as GLB/glTF') plus the destination folder (screenshots/), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like take_screenshot or gltf_to_r3f. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

Usage is implied by the format and destination, and the note about needing GLTFExporter acts as a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or routing to a sibling tool, so it remains only implied.

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