uv.export_layout

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

With no annotations, the burden is on the description. It only states 'Export', which implies a read-like operation but does not clarify if it overwrites files, requires write permissions, or has side effects like modifying the scene.

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 a single, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. However, three additional critical details about parameters could be added without significant bloat.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values (likely void or a status), date-range or filtering behavior, or any behavioral nuances like defaulting to active object.

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 0% (parameters only have titles). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'path', 'size'). No parameter descriptions or defaults are explained.

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 the action (Export), the resource (mesh UV layout), and the output type (image file). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like uv.report which likely outputs text.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., uv.report for textual feedback). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as having a mesh selected or UVs unwrapped.

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