export_glb

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write/destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., overwrite behavior, file existence handling). This is acceptable given the annotations, but no extra value is added beyond the purpose statement.

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?

A single, short sentence that directly states the action and target. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools (e.g., when to use export_glb over export_scene), and there is no mention of file path handling or overwriting behavior, which are important given the destructive hint.

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 the sole parameter 'filepath'. It does not provide details on expected path format, file extension, or how the path is interpreted. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but lacks crucial semantic guidance.

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 resource (entire scene), and the target format (GLB). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_selected and export_stl_mm by specifying 'seluruh scene' and 'GLB'.

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 phrase 'seluruh scene' implies usage for exporting the whole scene rather than selected objects, providing an implicit differentiation from export_selected. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over export_scene or other export tools, and no mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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