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. It states 'Export' but doesn't disclose that this likely creates or overwrites a file on disk, may require write permissions, or could have side effects like overwriting existing files. It also doesn't mention any potential failures (e.g., invalid filepath) or behavior differences based on format. The brevity leaves significant behavioral unknowns.

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 one short, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it's so brief that it omits crucial details, which slightly reduces the score because conciseness sacrifices necessary information.

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?

Given the tool is an export operation with 2 parameters (one undocumented format) and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify what 'export' results in (a file on disk), what format options exist, whether the filepath needs an extension, or what the output schema contains. For a file-writing tool, this is incomplete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description mentions only 'a file' without explaining the 'filepath' parameter's expected format or the 'format' parameter's valid values. Since 'format' has no default and no enum, the description should clarify what formats are supported (e.g., .obj, .fbx) but doesn't. This forces the agent to guess parameter values.

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 action (export), the resource (entire scene), and the destination (to a file). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'export_object' by specifying 'entire scene', which implies full-scene export. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with other export tools, so it's clear but not maximally distinct.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_export' or 'export_object'. The description implies it's for full-scene exports but doesn't state exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., requires a saved file), or when a different tool would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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