export_views

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and discloses important behaviors: the folder is created, existing files are overwritten, backgrounds are removed via a chosen method, and views.json records image size, object placement, and real_height-derived scene-unit data. It does not describe error handling or the tool's return value, leaving minor gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core action and outputs, and each subsequent paragraph (alignment consistency, views.json details, parameter glossary) adds necessary information. It is longer than average but stays on point with no filler, though the dense parameter glossary could be slightly tighter.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the operational context, output artifacts, and parameter semantics well. It omits what the tool returns (e.g., file paths or status) and any failure modes, which are the remaining gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all five parameters: views (as in align_views), folder (absolute path, created, overwritten), labels (named values included in filenames), real_height (scene units with example), and method (as in silhouette). This fully replaces missing schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Сохранить') and resource ('выровненные виды'), plus the exact outputs (PNG with transparent background and views.json) and the intended use case (Blender/C4D underlays). It also names related tools (align_views, silhouette) for parameter provenance, distinguishing its role from those siblings.

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?

Provides a clear context ('для подложек в Blender / C4D') and implies a workflow by specifying that views come from align_views and method from silhouette. It does not state when *not* to use the tool or name direct alternatives, so it stops short of the top score.

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