scene_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool exports the garment and lists formats, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether files are written to disk, whether it overwrites existing files, whether it requires a path to a directory or file, or whether it blocks until export completes). For a tool that writes files, this is a significant 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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists formats. It is concise and scannable, though the format list is a bit dense and could be structured (e.g., grouped by type). No wasted words.

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 file-export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain the return value (e.g., success status, exported file paths), error conditions, or parameter semantics. An agent would need to guess whether 'path' is a directory or a full file path, and what the boolean flags do. The format list is helpful but not sufficient for correct invocation.

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 not explain the 'path' parameter (file path vs. directory), 'colorways' (whether to export all colorways), or 'include_avatar' (whether the avatar mesh is included). The format list hints at what the export produces but does not map formats to parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds some context but leaves parameter meaning largely to the schema.

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 clear verb ('Export') and resource ('the garment'), and enumerates the supported file formats. It distinguishes itself from siblings like scene_save (which saves a scene) and snapshot (which captures a view), though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The format list adds specificity that helps an agent understand the tool's scope.

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 usage: call this when you need to export the current garment to a file format. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like scene_save or snapshot, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., a garment must be loaded). The format list gives some context but no explicit routing guidance.

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