max_file_io

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether import modifies the current scene, whether export overwrites existing files, how merge combines data, or what errors may occur. It adds only the format list and the `selected_only` export scope.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and structured with an Args block. Every line conveys needed parameter information with no wasted text.

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 file I/O tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It should disclose mutation/overwrite behavior, scene effects, and result expectations, none of which are present.

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, and it does document all three parameters: action values, an absolute path, and selected_only for export. However, it does not clarify whether `path` is a source or destination per action, whether selected_only is ignored for import/merge, or the default behavior when omitted.

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 states a specific verb-resource combination: import, export, or merge geometry files, with supported formats listed. It is clearly a file I/O tool rather than a scene-query or scene-edit tool, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from any sibling.

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 lists the `action` values but gives no guidance on when to choose import versus export versus merge, when not to use the tool, or any prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage context entirely.

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