export_mesh_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation (export) and the optional filtering behavior (mesh_item_names), but it does not state whether the output file is overwritten, whether the scene must be saved first, whether the export is destructive to existing files, or what happens if the scene contains no meshes. For a file-writing tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but serves as inline documentation given 0% schema coverage, so it is justified.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably covered. The description covers the main inputs and the optional filter. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., scene must exist, project must be open), overwrite behavior, and error conditions. For a file-export tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 must compensate. It does explain each parameter's role in the Args block, including the optional mesh_item_names behavior. However, it does not add details like path format expectations (e.g., trailing slashes, .tscn extension) or how mesh_item_names maps to node names. The description adds basic meaning but not deep 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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a specific resource ('3D scene as a MeshLibrary .res resource for GridMap'), and the target format. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_scene or save_scene, which handle scene files rather than exporting a mesh library resource.

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 it: when you need a MeshLibrary .res for GridMap from a .tscn scene. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer the context. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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