export_pick_and_place

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, but the description adds no behavioral context. It doesn't disclose what 'export' entails (e.g., file creation, overwriting), side effects, or consequences. The description is neutral but fails to elaborate on the destructive nature hinted by annotations. With no additional context, the description adds little beyond the annotations.

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 short sentence, which is concise and free of fluff. However, it is under-specified, providing only the bare purpose without context. While appropriately front-loaded, the brevity borders on inadequate for a tool with behavioral annotations and an undocumented parameter.

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 the tool's one parameter, output schema, and annotation hints, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'assembly position data' contains, what the output format options mean, or any side effects (especially with destructiveHint). It also doesn't distinguish from sibling export tools, leaving the agent to guess when to use it. The description is minimally viable but lacks essential context.

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% and the description doesn't mention the 'format' parameter at all. The schema only provides a default value without explaining allowed values or semantics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter entirely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('assembly position data'), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from many sibling export tools by naming the specific data type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar exports like export_bom or export_netlist.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts. For an export tool among dozens of siblings, this is a significant gap.

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