export_geometry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only restates the core action without disclosing behavior such as file writing, required file extensions, whether existing files are overwritten, or any side effects.

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 concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the verb. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse, lacking explanations of parameters or usage.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, 2 required, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how to specify shape_ref or filepath, what format options exist, or any constraints like allowed extensions.

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%, and the description adds no parameter information. Params like shape_ref, filepath, format, ascii_stl, and stl_deflection remain unexplained, so the agent cannot determine parameter semantics.

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 GEOM object' and specifies target formats BREP/STEP/IGES/STL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_mesh (mesh formats) and import_geometry (import direction).

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. It does not mention export_mesh for meshes or import_geometry for importing, nor any prerequisites like needing a GEOM object.

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