export_scene

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

The description states 'Export,' implying file creation or data transfer, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it modify the scene? Is it destructive? Are there authorization needs?). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it fails to clarify whether this is a read or write operation or any required state.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence is direct. The second sentence adds a note about the Ruby tool name, which may be unnecessary for an AI agent but does not harm. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It does not explain where the export goes, what the output contains, or any prerequisites. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other contextual details are missing.

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?

The single parameter 'format' has a clear enum and default in the schema, but the description does not mention it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have added context about the format parameter, but it did not. The enum values are self-explanatory, so score is slightly above minimum.

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 the current scene. The verb 'Export' and resource 'current scene' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are mainly modeling operations, leaving export as unique. However, it does not elaborate on what 'export' entails, such as which formats are available (though implicitly from schema).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., a scene must be open) or situations where export is inappropriate. Siblings include many tools but none for export, so it appears unique, but still lacks explicit usage context.

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