catia_export

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

The description adds useful behavioral context about format resolution ('format is taken from the file extension unless you name it explicitly') and supported formats per document type. However, with annotations carrying little safety detail, it does not disclose side effects like whether the default overwrite=true replaces existing files, whether the export blocks, or what the function returns. It is not misleading, but it leaves some behavioral burden uncovered.

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?

Two sentences carry all the crucial information: what the tool exports, to which formats, and how format selection works. The active-document scope is front-loaded, and every phrase contributes value without repetition or filler.

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?

For a three-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers the main inputs and scope well. It is incomplete in that it does not mention return behavior, error conditions, or the overwrite default behavior, though the overwrite parameter is documented in the schema. Overall it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing accepted neutral formats and clarifying which formats apply to 3D documents versus drawings, and by explaining the extension-vs-explicit-format precedence. This helps the agent choose valid path/format combinations.

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 a specific action ('Export the active document'), a resource ('active document'), and a concrete scope ('neutral format'). It enumerates supported formats for both 3D documents and drawings, which distinguishes it from sibling export tools like catia_export_all_open and catia_export_bom_csv without requiring the agent to inspect their schemas.

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 implies usage by saying 'active document' and enumerates format categories, but it does not explicitly route the agent toward alternatives such as catia_export_all_open for exporting all open documents or catia_export_bom_csv for BOM data. Usage context is present, but exclusions and direct sibling comparisons are absent.

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