export_model_3mf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states conversion from STL/OBJ/GLB and auto-generation of output path, but omits whether the tool is read-only, error handling, file size limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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, front-loads the main action, and separates param docs. It earns its place but the rationale for 3MF is slightly extraneous. Overall well-structured for the information provided.

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 has no output schema or annotations, so the description must cover return value and behavioral details. It mentions the return dict, but lacks error conditions, overwrite behavior, and validation details. Adequate for a simple conversion but incomplete for robust use.

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 adds meaning by explaining file_path as input mesh and output_path as auto-generating if empty. It provides clear semantics beyond the schema titles, but could specify allowed formats or path constraints.

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 mesh to 3MF format, specifies input formats (STL, OBJ, GLB), and explains why 3MF is preferred for modern slicers. This distinguishes it from export tools like export_safety_profile.

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 context for when to use (exporting to 3MF for slicers) but does not explicitly exclude cases or suggest alternatives. It could be improved by noting when not to use, e.g., if already in 3MF.

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