imgui_export_lua

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the primary behavior (generates code recreating all windows/widgets with current values), but doesn't mention side effects (if any), whether the export is read-only, or what 'current values' means precisely (e.g., widget positions, sizes, states). Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that packs the verb, resource, format, and content scope without wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and purpose.

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 just one optional parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema requirement, the description covers the essential information. It's complete enough for an agent to understand what code will be generated and how to control output location. Minor gap: no explanation of how the generated Lua would be used or consumed afterward.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the path parameter is fully documented ('Optional file path to write the Lua code to. If omitted, code is returned inline.'), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the two output modes (file write vs inline return), which slightly exceeds baseline value by clarifying the behavioral difference between parameter values.

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 verb (export), resource (current UI layout), output format (Lua ImGui bindings code), and scope ('recreates all windows and widgets with their current values'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like imgui_export_cpp and imgui_export_json by specifying the Lua binding format.

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 explains what the tool produces but does not explicitly state when to use it over export_cpp or export_json alternatives. It implies usage (exporting a Lua recreation of the UI) but doesn't provide when/when-not guidance or mention the optional path parameter's role in choosing inline vs file output.

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