doc_export_2d

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: the input must be a solid or document and meshes are rejected, `offset` is silently ignored under projection, orientation is never mirrored (with the axis-to-view mapping), and output units are mm. It even describes what `wires` counts in the result, far beyond what structured fields 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then mode semantics, then constraints, then return meaning. Dense but every sentence carries new information and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description supplies mode rules, axis conventions, input constraints and the meaning of `wires`. Only the file-path and object-selection parameters remain unaddressed, which is a minor gap for an otherwise complete definition.

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. It thoroughly explains mode, axis (z=top, y=frontal, x=right side) and offset, but leaves path, out_path and especially objects completely undefined in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (generates .svg/.dxf in mm from a solid) and then distinguishes its two operating modes with concrete behavior, so an agent can identify it instantly without opening the schema. The '2D from solid' framing also implicitly separates it from the generic doc_export sibling.

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?

Gives explicit mode-selection guidance ('para laser, use este' for section; projection as preview/drawing), which is the main decision an agent must make. It does not, however, compare itself against the sibling doc_export or state when NOT to use this tool.

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