export_scene

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write behavior is known. The description adds no new behavioral context such as overwrite behavior, file creation side effects, or confirmation that the entire scene is exported. It relies entirely on annotations without enriching them.

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, compact sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and supported formats. It contains no fluff and is appropriately sized for a simple export tool, though it could have included a bit more context without losing conciseness.

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 presence of closely related sibling tools (export_glb, export_selected, export_stl_mm), the description is incomplete. It fails to specify whether 'scene' means the entire scene or selected objects, and it does not mention any output behavior. The existing output schema may help, but the description alone does not adequately equip an agent to choose 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?

The input schema has zero coverage for parameter descriptions. The description lists acceptable values for the 'format' parameter, adding some semantic value beyond the raw schema. However, 'filepath' is left unexplained, and the description does not clarify that it is the destination path or how the file is named. Partial compensation only.

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 identifies the tool as exporting the scene and enumerates supported formats (glb/gltf/fbx/obj/stl/ply/usd/usdz/dae/x3d), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like export_glb or export_selected, leaving slight ambiguity about scope (scene vs selection).

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 format list implies this tool is for general scene export in various formats, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like export_glb, export_selected, or export_stl_mm. It neither names alternatives nor states exclusions, making the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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