export_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Export') but doesn't reveal critical traits: whether this creates files (potentially destructive), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output entails. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise—just four words—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick comprehension, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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's moderate complexity (export operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and an output schema present (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage, or parameters. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but more context would improve completeness for safe and effective use.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (no schema descriptions), and the tool description doesn't mention parameters at all. However, since there's only one optional parameter ('format'), the baseline is high. The description doesn't add semantic value, but the low parameter count mitigates the impact, warranting a score above the minimum.

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 'Export the current scene' clearly states the action (export) and resource (current scene), but it's somewhat vague about what 'export' entails (file creation, format conversion, etc.) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_component' or 'get_selection'. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about the export operation's nature.

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 alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open scene), exclusions, or related tools. It's a standalone statement with no contextual usage information, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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