rupa_ekspor

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: scale is applied to vertices first with a rationale, and the result reports triangle count, bounding box, and warnings. The destructiveHint annotation already covers the write/mutation risk, so the description does not need to repeat it.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds valuable behavioral details and output information. The parenthetical rationale about three.js is short and earns its place.

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 destructive export tool with no output schema, the description covers the key action, the important scale-baking behavior, and what the result contains. The schema handles parameter specifics and the annotations handle the destructive hint, so the overall context is reasonably complete.

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 descriptions already document draco, ruang, and berkas. The description adds useful context around scale-baking, which relates to terapkan_transformasi, and describes the output report. However, draco_level and terapkan_transformasi are not explicitly explained, leaving a partial parameter coverage gap.

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 action and resource: 'Ekspor adegan ke GLB' (export scene to GLB). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools like rupa_cad_ekspor, which target CAD data rather than a scene.

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 implied: an agent would use this when it needs to export a scene to GLB. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternatives such as rupa_cad_ekspor or rupa_adegan_terbit.

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