rhino_export_step

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation, which is consistent. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context—only a prerequisite mention—and does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error conditions. Given no destructiveHint annotation, more disclosure would be helpful.

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 (6 words), which is concise but lacks important details. It is front-loaded with the action, but omits parameter context. While brevity is valued, here it comes at the cost of completeness.

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 has multiple parameters and an output schema (not described), the description is too sparse. It does not cover return values, prerequisites beyond 'bridge', or parameter usage. Among many sibling tools, it provides only minimal differentiation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description provides no parameter information at all. It does not add meaning beyond the schema, which already has descriptions for doc_id and object_ids. This is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.

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 action (export) and target format (STEP), and mentions a prerequisite (bridge required). It differentiates from sibling export tools like rhino_export_obj by specifying STEP, though it doesn't explain what a bridge is.

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 implies usage when STEP export is needed and mentions a prerequisite (bridge required), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives 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.