protogen__export_cad_design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It labels the tool as 'Export' which suggests a read operation, but does not disclose side effects, security requirements, or what happens with the output. The payment_ref parameter hints at financial implications but remains unexplained.

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 sentence that efficiently names the action and outputs. However, it could be improved by structuring information about parameters and usage into discrete sentences.

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?

Without output schema or detailed parameter explanations, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. The return format (e.g., file download, URL) is not mentioned, and payment requirements are opaque.

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?

Scheama description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the three parameters (design_id, payment_ref, export_format). The export formats listed do not map to acceptable values for export_format, leaving the agent without critical input guidance.

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 tool exports a CAD design and lists three specific export formats (OpenSCAD, STEP contract metadata, manufacturing brief). This differentiates from sibling tools like protogen__generate_cad_design which creates designs rather than exporting them.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose each export format, nor conditions for using this tool over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like payment that might be implied by the payment_ref parameter.

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