export_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read/write operation, what permissions are needed, if it modifies the scene, rate limits, or output behavior (though output schema exists). This is inadequate for a mutation-like tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with a single sentence ('Export the current scene'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. For a simple tool, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.

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 potential complexity (exporting a scene implies file generation or data output), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'export' entails, the output format implications, or how it interacts with the scene. The output schema helps but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of context.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain the 'format' parameter's purpose, default value, or valid options. However, with only 1 parameter and an output schema present, the baseline is 3 as the schema provides some structure, but the description fails to add meaningful semantics.

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' states a clear verb ('Export') and resource ('current scene'), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'scene' means in this context or differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_component' or 'get_selection', leaving it somewhat vague about its specific domain.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open scene), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'eval_ruby' or 'set_material', leaving the agent with no usage context.

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