export_3d

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description's main addition is the conditional behavior of parameters (render fills dimensions, mesh formats leave them unset) and the default path behavior for pcb_path/output_dir. It does not disclose potential file overwriting or directory creation, but with annotations covering safety, the added context is adequate.

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 starts with a concise purpose statement, then a clarifying sentence about render vs mesh behavior, followed by an organized Args list. Every line adds information necessary for correct use, and the structure makes it 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?

With 7 parameters, conditional dependencies, and no schema descriptions, the description addresses all required usage details: optional paths with defaults, format choices, and parameter applicability per format. The output schema is available so no return-value explanation is needed. The tool is fully specified for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description carries full responsibility. It explains each of the 7 parameters, including enum values for format, defaults, and render-only constraints for width/height/side/quality. The note about 'render fills width, height and side; the mesh formats leave them unset' adds crucial conditional semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Export PCB 3D model or render 3D view to image,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling export tools like export_schematic or export_pcb by focusing on 3D output. The format enumeration (step, stl, glb, render) further clarifies scope.

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 provides context that render uses width/height/side/quality while mesh formats ignore them, guiding parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over other export tools, such as export_pcb or export_gerbers. The purpose is clear but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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