export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully states the output directory pattern, default object selection, supported formats, and that an absolute path is returned, but it omits overwrite behavior, permissions, error conditions, and whether existing files are replaced.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope. Every sentence adds useful information: supported formats, return path, and the DXF sibling alternative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, though the description still gives the return path. The main remaining gap is filename and overwrite behavior, which is relevant for a file-exporting tool.

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. It explains fmt by listing supported formats and explains objects by stating the default-all-solids behavior, but it does not clarify doc or filename semantics.

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 (export objects) with explicit scope details: default all solids, supported formats, output directory, and returned path. It also distinguishes itself from export_dxf by naming the DXF alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives clear usage context by specifying that objects default to all solids and by routing DXF/laser-cutting use to export_dxf. The alternative and its selecting condition are stated explicitly.

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