ft_export_shape_key_report

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or has side effects. It only states it generates a report, which implies reading, but this is not explicit.

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 concise with a single sentence and a short argument list. No redundant information, but it could be slightly more structured with a clearer separation of purpose and parameters.

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 description fails to explain what metadata is included in the report or the structure of the output. Since no output schema is provided, the agent must infer the format, which is insufficient for a report generation 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?

The description adds meaning to 'mesh_name' (name of the face mesh) and 'format' (output format choices: markdown or json), which goes beyond the schema's bare string type. However, it does not list all possible values for format or specify 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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'a complete report of all shape keys with metadata', distinguishing it from sibling tools like ft_combine_shape_keys or ft_validate_shapes which perform different operations on shape keys.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ft_validate_shapes or ft_combine_shape_keys. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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