export_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Export the current scene.' It does not state whether this writes a file, overwrites an existing file, returns a download, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The agent is left without key behavioral context.

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 a single clear sentence with no wasted words, which is good, but it is also under-specified. It provides only the bare action and fails to front-load any parameter or behavior information that would help an agent use the tool correctly.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description omits important context such as supported formats, default behavior, output meaning, and side effects. With one parameter and no annotations, this minimal description is not enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool without external assumptions.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'format' parameter at all. The schema only provides the parameter name and a default of 'skp', so the agent is not told what formats are supported or what the default implies. The parameter name is mildly self-explanatory, but the description adds no real semantic value.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Export the current scene.' This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all about component creation/deletion/transformation, materials, joints, or Ruby evaluation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any other export-like tool, so it loses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus an alternative, nor any mention of prerequisites or context such as whether a scene must be selected or active. The description simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer suitable invocation conditions.

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