export_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explains format derivation and the optional objects parameter, but does not mention that exporting writes to a file (potentially overwriting), requires specific permissions, or what the return/result indicates. It also omits the 'document' parameter, leaving behavioral context incomplete.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear purpose, supported formats list, and an Args section. It earns its place, though the missing 'document' parameter is a minor structural omission. It is not bloated or repetitive.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, output schema not shown), the description is incomplete. It fails to describe the 'document' parameter, does not state file overwrite behavior or permission needs, and lacks guidance on when to use this versus save_document. The supported formats list is helpful, but significant contextual gaps remain.

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?

The description adds meaning for 'path' (destination file path) and 'objects' (names to export, omit for all shaped objects), supplementing the schema which has no descriptions. However, it completely omits the 'document' parameter, which appears in the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it only partially does so.

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 action: 'Export geometry to a file' with a specific scope (geometry, not document). It distinguishes from siblings by listing supported formats and explaining that the format is derived from the file extension, which clearly delineates it from save_document or capture_view.

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 implies usage: when you need to export geometry to a supported file format. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like save_document for native format or capture_view for rendering. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool reference.

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