export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: STEP/IGES/SAT/SMT/F3D ignore the body parameter, refinement applies only to STL/OBJ, units are limited to STL/OBJ, and path constraints (absolute, no relative or Windows reserved names). It does not mention file overwriting or return values, but the disclosed format-specific details are strong.

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 concise and well-structured, with each line dedicated to a specific parameter or behavior. It avoids redundancy and fluff, using a clear label-and-explanation format that is easy to scan.

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 tool with 5 parameters and format-specific quirks, the description covers all core aspects: formats, path, body, refinement, and units with constraints. It lacks mention of file overwriting or directory existence, but these are edge cases. Overall, it is complete enough for correct usage.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains every parameter: format with allowed values, path constraints, body behavior, refinement values, and units values. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, giving format applicability and default behaviors.

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 'Export geometry to a file' and lists supported formats, making the action and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like save_as (likely for saving design documents) and import_geometry (importing geometry).

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (to export geometry to a file in a specific format) and provides format-specific behavior (e.g., STEP/IGES ignore body). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like save_as or conditions when not to use this tool, so it misses some exclusionary guidance.

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