exportStandaloneScene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool creates a file ('Saved to the scenes/ folder'), specifies what's included ('all objects, lights, materials, animations, camera, and environment'), excludes chat UI, and mentions the return value ('Returns the file path'). It doesn't cover potential errors or file size limitations, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core action and key features, second specifies the output location and exclusion, third declares the return value. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it easy to parse.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong completeness: it explains what the tool does, what's included/excluded, where files are saved, and what's returned. The main gap is lack of explicit error handling or limitations information, but it covers most essential context given the tool's complexity.

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 100% for the single parameter 'name', which is documented in the schema as 'File name (without .html extension). Defaults to a timestamp-based name.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Export the current scene as a standalone HTML file') and resource ('current scene'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'exportScene' (which likely exports in a different format) and 'saveScene' (which saves scene state rather than creating a browser-playable file). It precisely defines what the tool does.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to create a browser-playable HTML file from the current scene. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like 'exportScene' (likely server-dependent) by specifying 'without a server', but doesn't explicitly name when not to use it or list all alternatives.

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