rhino_export_obj

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

While annotations indicate a write operation, the description does not disclose behavioral traits like file overwriting, disk space requirements, or what happens if objects are not meshes. The 'mesh-only' hint is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema, the description lacks completeness for a file export tool. It does not mention side effects (file creation), constraints (mesh-only), or error conditions, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema provides descriptions for 'doc_id' and 'object_ids', reducing the burden on the tool description. The description adds minimal value beyond implying the path should point to a .obj file. With partial schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 objects to Wavefront OBJ format and specifies 'mesh-only', which distinguishes it from generic export tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling OBJ-like exports such as rhino_export_stl, so a slight deduction.

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 this tool versus alternatives like rhino_export_stl or rhino_export_step. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., objects must be meshes) or scenarios where OBJ is preferred.

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