cst_export_cad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions exporting the 'current model' or a specific component and lists formats, but does not disclose behavior like file overwrite rules, authentication needs, or any side effects. Acceptable for a simple export but missing some details.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words, all information is relevant and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and scope. It lacks information on error behavior (e.g., file overwrite) but is sufficient for selection and basic usage.

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 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context beyond the schema by clarifying 'current model (or a specific component)' and listing formats, which complements the enum 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 verb 'Export' and the resource 'the current CST model (or a specific component)' to CAD formats. It lists supported formats, which distinguishes it from sibling export tools like cst_export_farfield or cst_export_touchstone.

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 (exporting a model or component to CAD) and lists formats, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. The context is clear given sibling names, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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