Shape export stl

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds value beyond them: it warns that files are written on the local PC at the given path, and documents units (m, z-up) and the exact-CSG guarantee. Missing only error/overwrite behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by the ascii/solid_name detail, units, and a bracketed file-write warning. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the essentials: destination path semantics, units, z-up orientation, exact-mesh guarantee, and the local file-write side effect. The one gap is the undocumented node_id parameter.

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 coverage is 50% (path and solid_name documented; ascii and node_id not). The description compensates for ascii (text STL) and solid_name (snappyHexMesh patch name), which is meaningful beyond the schema, but node_id remains unexplained in both places, so it only partially closes the gap.

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+resource: export the exact CSG mesh as STL. The 'no voxelization' clause genuinely distinguishes it from shape_preview_voxels and the other shape_export_* format siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides clear use context by naming the destination workflow (CFD / OpenFOAM, snappyHexMesh patch names) and the ascii=true flag for text STL, so an agent knows the scenario this serves. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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