export

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details format behavior (2D vs 3D), error cases for mixing formats, STEP labelling semantics, and downstream tool expectations. However, it does not mention whether the export writes to disk or triggers side effects.

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 moderately detailed but each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and progressively adds nuance. Could be slightly more concise, but the structure supports readability.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers format-specific output, error messages, and downstream CAD tool behavior. The completeness is high for the tool's complexity, though it could mention output schema details.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains format values (including comma-separated lists) and object_name (using show() or '*'), but provides no additional detail for the required filename parameter. This partial coverage raises it above baseline but not fully.

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 tool exports a model and lists supported formats (step, stl, dxf, svg). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like import_cad_file by explicitly describing export behavior and format-specific usage.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each format: dxf for engineering-drawing handoff, svg for embedding in docs/wikis. Also advises against mixing 2D and 3D formats and explains object_name usage with '*' for combined assemblies.

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