export_file

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a useful behavior — format is auto-detected from the file extension — but it omits important side effects like whether existing files are overwritten, what happens on unsupported extensions, or whether any scene state is modified.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the auto-detection note is placed second as a useful clarification.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, so a long description is not necessary. However, without annotations, the description should at least mention overwrite risk or unsupported-extension handling to be fully contextual; these gaps prevent a higher score.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the format parameter by explaining it is optional and derived from the filepath extension, but it says nothing about the required filepath parameter beyond its name, nor about acceptable extensions or path requirements.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Export the scene to a file.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_file (opposite direction) and export_selection (exports only the selection rather than the whole scene).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_selection, save_file, or list_supported_formats. It only mentions format auto-detection, not the conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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