rhino_export_iges

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds only the 'bridge required' prerequisite, which is a behavioral constraint. However, it fails to disclose other important behaviors like file overwrite behavior, supported IGES versions, or required permissions, leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely short (one phrase), which is concise but at the expense of valuable information. It is not structured to convey multiple aspects (purpose, parameters, usage) and reads more like a label than a helpful description.

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 complexity (simple export) and the presence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what IGES is, when to use it, or how parameters work. With many sibling export tools and 0% schema coverage, much more detail is needed for effective selection and invocation.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not mention any parameter (path, doc_id, object_ids) or their meanings. The agent is left with no guidance on how to fill these parameters correctly, making this dimension critically lacking.

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 verb 'Export' and the target format 'IGES', making the core action obvious. However, it does not elaborate on what IGES is or differentiate it from sibling export tools like rhino_export_step or rhino_export_obj, missing an opportunity to clarify unique value.

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 provides no guidance on when to use IGES versus other export formats. The only extra information is 'bridge required', which is a prerequisite but not a usage guideline. No alternatives or contextual hints are given.

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