femm_export_dxf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this writes the *current* geometry (not selected entities) to a file on disk, which is useful. But it says nothing about overwriting an existing file, failure behavior, or session/permission requirements for a write operation.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for what it chooses to convey, even though it omits detail elsewhere.

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 file-writing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, this description is too thin. It omits path semantics (relative vs absolute), overwrite behavior, and session handling — all of which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 not. The destination file implied by 'to a DXF file' loosely maps to the required 'path', but the 'session' parameter (default 'main') is never mentioned or explained, so an agent cannot tell whether it matters here.

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 and resource: writes the current geometry to a DXF file. This clearly separates it from femm_import_dxf (opposite direction) and from femm_save (native format), even though it names no sibling explicitly. The parenthetical 'xi_savedxf' is internal jargon rather than added clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to export to DXF versus using femm_save, femm_save_bitmap, or femm_export_pyfemm_script. No prerequisites (open document, active session) are stated. The only hint is the reference to the underlying 'xi_savedxf' call.

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