export

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

Beyond the annotations (which only indicate idempotent, non-read-only, non-destructive), the description discloses critical behaviors: single-object vs assembly export, label propagation in STEP, 2D/3D format limitations, error on mixing, and a final echo of geometry metrics as a sanity check. This is rich, non-obvious context that annotations do not provide.

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 long but every sentence adds value, covering formats, use cases, error conditions, and export behavior. It's slightly dense and could be broken into paragraphs for readability, but it is not wasteful. The core purpose is stated upfront, making it well-front-loaded.

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 complexity (multi-format export, object selection, assembly handling, error cases, and result verification), the description covers all necessary aspects. The output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description fully explains the 'format' parameter (allowed values, 2D/3D mapping, comma-separated lists) and 'object_name' ('*', named object, default current shape). It even clarifies implications of the filename through context. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Export model' and goes on to specify the exact resource (model) and action, then elaborates on format options and behavior. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like render_view or save_snapshot by focusing on file export with format-specific details.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each format: 'use step for downstream CAD interop instead', 'Use dxf for engineering-drawing handoff', 'svg for embedding in docs/wikis', and notes 3mf is for slicers. This gives clear context and alternatives, satisfying the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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