rhino_export_stl

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

Annotations have readOnlyHint=false, consistent with an export (write) operation. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation: it does not mention file creation behavior (overwrite, create new), path handling, or any side effects. It also doesn't clarify whether the export applies to the entire document or only selected objects, though parameters hint at 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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded with the key action and format. However, it lacks detail that would make it earn its single sentence; it could be expanded to cover key parameters and behavioral expectations without being verbose.

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 (1 required parameter, output schema present), the description is insufficient. It does not explain which meshes are exported (all, selected, or filtered by object_ids), whether the path must be new or existing, or any error/overwrite behavior. Although output schema exists, the description should still provide context about the export scope and constraints.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions in the schema for the parameters). The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema field titles. For example, 'path', 'doc_id', and 'object_ids' are not explained in the description, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names alone.

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), resource (meshes), and output format (ASCII STL file). It distinguishes from sibling export tools like rhino_export_obj and rhino_export_step by specifying 'STL'. However, it could be more precise about whether it exports all meshes or a subset, though the presence of an 'object_ids' parameter implies filtering.

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 like rhino_export_obj or rhino_export_step. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or trade-offs. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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