exportSchematic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output path, the returned absolute path, and project-name constraints, which is useful. However, it does not state whether an existing output file is overwritten, whether the export modifies the active project, or what happens if no project is active.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and destination are front-loaded, and the project-name constraint is provided as a separate concise clarification. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the essential output location and return value, but omits behavior around file overwrites and the requirement that an active project must exist before calling. Since there are no annotations and no output schema, these are meaningful gaps for an agent choosing whether to invoke the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context by specifying allowed characters in project names, which helps the agent understand what project names may appear in the output path. No parameter documentation is needed beyond this.

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 action ('Export'), a specific resource ('the active project'), a concrete destination ('./output/<projectName>.schem'), and the return value ('absolute path'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like listProjects, createProject, or setBlock.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'Export' and the context of an active project, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are given. There are no sibling export tools, so the lack of alternatives is somewhat mitigated, but the description still does not say 'use this when you need to save the current schematic'.

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