export_3d

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the export action but does not mention whether files are overwritten, permissions required, or if the operation is reversible. The presence of an output schema is noted but not described.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it is very brief and could include more detail without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters (one required) and numerous sibling export tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the output schema, parameter behavior, or when to choose this over other export options. The context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage, reinforcing the 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 coverage is 0%, so parameters are undocumented. The description lists formats but does not explain the 'output_path' or 'format_name' parameters. The default for format_name is mentioned in the schema but not in the description.

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 3D model and lists example formats (STEP, GLB, STL). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from other export tools like export_dxf or export_gerbers which are for 2D outputs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative export tools (e.g., export_dxf, export_gerbers). The description only implies usage for 3D models but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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