export_cad

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only reveals that a worker process is launched and which file types come back. It says nothing about execution time, whether the job is synchronous or queued, side effects or artifacts written to storage, failure modes, or permission requirements for a heavyweight export operation.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the outputs listed after, with no filler. The terseness borders on underspecification, but every clause conveys information.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the enumeration of return artifacts is supportive rather than essential, and the missing pieces are around inputs and preconditions. For a tool that launches a CAD worker and takes a design identifier, an agent still lacks the information needed to know when the call is safe and what design_id should reference.

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% and the single required parameter design_id is never mentioned in the description, so nothing explains where that identifier comes from (e.g., from create_cabinet or list results) or what it identifies. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema, which is a real gap at this coverage level.

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 names a concrete action ('Run configured FreeCAD worker') and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced (FCStd, STEP, CAD mesh, measured report), which lets an agent tell it apart from render_preview or inspect_design. It is clear but leans on jargon ('configured worker') rather than stating plainly that it exports CAD geometry for a design.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over render_preview or inspect_design, no mention of prerequisites (what 'configured' means, whether the backend must be ready), and no note on whether it can be re-run or called repeatedly. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the tool name.

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