export_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool exports to a file and returns a dict with path and format. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing files, file size limits, or permission requirements. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 efficiently structured with a single-line purpose, bullet list of supported formats, and clear Args section. Every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 description covers all three parameters, the return value (dict with path and format), and supported formats. Given the presence of an output schema (context signal), the return docstring suffices. The tool is straightforward and the description is fully complete.

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 description provides detailed parameter semantics beyond the input schema titles: filepath is an absolute path, type is an optional format override auto-detected from extension, selected_only defaults to False. Schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in JSON schema), so the description compensates well. No example values are given, preventing 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?

The description clearly states it exports scene or selected objects to a 3D file, listing supported formats (FBX, OBJ, etc.). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'import_file' by contrasting export vs import, and among sibling tools there is no other export tool, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains required parameter (filepath), optional format override (type auto-detected), and selected_only boolean with default. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but given no other export tool exists among siblings, the guidance is sufficient. A slight deduction for not mentioning export of entire scene vs selection clearly.

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