export

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions silent execution, file verification, and size reporting, which is useful. However, it does not address overwrite behavior, failure handling (e.g., invalid extension), or permissions. The tessellation behavior is well explained, but side effects beyond file creation are omitted.

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 purpose in the first sentence and behavioral details following. The tessellation paragraph is structured logically. No filler or redundancy, though the file_format omission leaves a slight structural gap.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, and most parameters, but omits file_format semantics, overwrite/conflict behavior, and error handling for unsupported extensions. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains quality, deviation_mm, and angle_deg in context, and implies path via 'format from extension'. However, it does not explain the file_format parameter at all, which is ambiguous (override vs. derived). Coverage is partial, not fully compensatory.

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?

States a specific verb (export) with a clear resource (current part or assembly) and enumerates the target formats (STEP/STL/IGES/Parasolid/3MF). It distinguishes itself from save_part (native format) and other modeling tools. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 when to use (when exporting to a neutral CAD format) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like save_part or provide exclusion criteria. It gives clear context for tessellation parameters but no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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