export_dxf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses output scale, units, layer inclusion, editable text, and the no-sheet-needed behavior of model mode. It also mentions overwrite and path rules, though the exact semantics are deferred to export_schedule rather than spelled out.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each mode explained in a separate clause and the cross-reference to export_schedule kept to one sentence. The parenthetical layer list adds useful domain detail without bloating the text.

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 core export behavior and the two modes are well covered, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not required. The main gaps are the semantics of the page parameter and the exact path/overwrite defaults, both of which rely on external knowledge of export_schedule rather than being self-contained.

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 mode parameter is well explained, including its default and the meaning of both enum values. However, the page parameter is only implied by the sheet-mode explanation, and path/overwrite behavior relies on a reference to export_schedule rather than being described here, which is thin given 0% schema description coverage.

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 opening sentence names the exact operation and artifact ('Export a DXF'), and the two modes specify what is produced: a 1:1 mm CAD plan with layers and editable text vs. the scaled TechDraw sheet. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_svg, export_pdf, and export_ifc without requiring schema inspection.

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 gives concrete use context for each mode: model mode is 'to work in a CAD program' and sheet mode exports 'the TechDraw page as drawn on paper (scaled)'. It also signals consistency with export_schedule for path/overwrite behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer export_dxf over the other export siblings.

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