export_dxf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well by stating the output format, DXF entities used, units (mm), and save location under `workspace/exports/<doc>/`. It does not mention overwrite behavior or permissions, so it stops short of full behavioral transparency.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then explains modes and output details in dense, useful sentences. There is no wasted 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?

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the description adequately covers the core invocation modes, units, entities, and save path. Remaining gaps around `name`/`filename` and overwrite behavior keep it from being fully complete.

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 usefully explains `face` and `plane` + `offset` semantics, including coordinate frame and cross-section meaning, but leaves required `name` and optional `filename`/`doc` largely undefined.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Export a 2D DXF outline") and names the intended use case (laser/waterjet cutting). It is clearly distinguishable from the generic sibling `export` because it specifies 2D DXF cutting output.

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?

It explicitly presents the two invocation modes: `face` for one planar face or `plane` + `offset` for a cross-section. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the mode-selection guidance is clear.

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