serp_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the file-writing behavior and format selection, but it does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories must exist, or any error conditions. For a straightforward export tool, this is moderate 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Export') and includes the essential qualifiers: target (scene/selection), formats, and format selection mechanism. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

The tool is conceptually simple, and the description covers the core behavior and parameters. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. The main missing context is file-overwrite behavior and potential failure modes, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for this export tool.

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 adds meaning to the 'path' parameter by explaining that the extension determines the format, and it clarifies that 'selected_only' controls whether the scene or current selection is exported. This is valuable context beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool exports a scene or selection to specific 3D file formats (.serp, .step/.stp, .obj), with the format determined by the file extension. This is a specific verb+resource+behavior that distinguishes it from siblings like serp_import and serp_screenshot.

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 provides clear context: you can export either the whole scene or the current selection, and the format is chosen by the file extension. It does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives, but among the siblings only serp_screenshot is a visual export, and this tool's purpose is distinct enough that no exclusion is necessary.

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