xuat_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about whether the export overwrites an existing file at duong_dan, what permissions or preconditions are needed, whether the model must already exist, or what the tool returns; for a disk-writing operation this is a significant gap.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, the format list follows, and the format trade-off note is short and earns its place. It is efficient, though the trailing newline/whitespace and terse style leave it thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

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?

With three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain path format, the meaning of chi_cua_addon, and the effect of exporting. It covers only format choice, leaving an agent unable to call the tool correctly in edge cases.

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% across three parameters, and the description only compensates for one of them (dinh_dang, whose allowed values glb/fbx/obj/stl it lists). duong_dan and chi_cua_addon remain completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the required path parameter and the addon-scoping flag unexplained.

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 ('Xuat mo hinh ra file' = export the model to a file) and enumerates the supported formats (glb, fbx, obj, stl). It is clearly distinct from the modeling siblings, but it never explicitly names or contrasts an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 useful context for choosing a format value (glb for web/mobile viewing, fbx for moving to other software), which is implied usage guidance. However it says nothing about when to use this tool versus other output-oriented siblings such as render_anh, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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