export_configuration_cad

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that a file is written and that the path is returned as cad_path, which is useful mutation context. It omits overwrite behavior for output_path, permission/session requirements, format defaults, and any size/pagination concerns.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then upstream/downstream linking, then the optional flag. No filler.

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?

It covers the return value well (cad_path) despite no output schema, and links to the downstream tool. But for a 5-parameter file-writing tool with zero schema documentation, the unexplained output_path and session_id leave real gaps.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains component_uid and include_base64 meaningfully, but leaves output_path (where the file lands, overwrite semantics) and session_id unexplained, and only the enum values hint at format.

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 (export configuration CAD) and clarifies scope: full configuration vs. a single component when component_uid is set. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling export_component_mesh, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this tool.

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?

Gives concrete downstream wiring — pass cad_path to su2_generate_mesh_from_step as step_path — and a conditional rule for include_base64 (only when file content itself is needed). No explicit when-not or sibling alternative is offered, but the intended workflow is clear.

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