export_assembly_outputs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: 'vendor-native requests fail explicitly'. However, it does not mention output format, file system side effects, required session state, or other potential behavioral implications, leaving significant gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both clauses provide distinct information: the purpose and the failure behavior. It is concise and easy to scan.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has three optional parameters and sits among many similar export/session tools. The description does not explain parameter semantics, differentiate from export_fabrication_outputs or export_bom, or provide usage context such as whether a session or transaction is required. This is too sparse for reliable tool selection.

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 should compensate for the three parameters. It only faintly hints at 'request_native_outputs' through 'vendor-native requests', but says nothing about 'path' or 'include_dnp'. The description adds almost no value 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 uses the specific verb 'Export' and identifies the resource as 'generic BOM/placement artifacts', which clearly states what the tool does. It also distinguishes this tool from vendor-native or fabrication-specific export tools by noting that vendor-native requests fail explicitly, setting it apart from siblings like export_fabrication_outputs.

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 implies the tool is for generic outputs and that vendor-native requests should not be used, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use criteria. The guidance is present only by implication, not as clear direction.

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