cad_export

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=trueants, and the description adds a useful constraint about absolute pathsaine. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, file-extension expectations, or side effects beyond the annotation's generic destructive warning.

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 compact and front-loaded with the verb and resource. It wastes no words, though it could have used the room to mention the omitted STL format or clarify overwrite behavior.

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?

There is no output schemaasiatic and 7 parameters, but the description only addresses two and leaves important invocation details (version enums, overwrite semantics, what the tool returns) unstated. This is not enough for an agent to call the tool correctly with advanced options.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter explanation. It covers format and path partially, but leaves layout, options, version, overwrite, and selection entirely unexplained—significant gaps given the schema has 7 parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('active drawing or a layout') and lists the supported output formats. This clearly distinguishes cad_export from sibling tools like cad_draw or cad_inspect.

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 clear context by specifying the input resource and formats, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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