doc_export

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: it will not overwrite the input, mesh conversion is restricted to .FCStd or other mesh formats, and deflection values trade off fineness against facet count. It omits whether an existing out_path is overwritten and any permission requirements.

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 format-selection rule is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact list of outputs and the two mesh knobs. Every sentence carries information, though the flow is a bit cramped with several short fragments.

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 5-parameter export tool with no annotations, the description covers format routing, filtering, mesh quality and the key non-destructive constraint. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained; the lingering gap is the meaning of the required `path` parameter.

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 the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: out_path's extension picks the format, objects matches Name or Label, and both deflection params are given meaning, units and a concrete direction of effect. Only `path` (the input model) is left unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Converte um modelo') and enumerates the target formats selected by out_path's extension, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling doc_export_2d, leaving the 2D-vs-3D split to inference from names.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer that mesh output cannot target .step/.iges/.brep and that omitting `objects` exports everything. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or reference to an alternative sibling such as doc_export_2d for 2D output.

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