export_step

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds minimal context by noting the optional explicit output path and alias nature, but does not describe what happens if the path is omitted, side effects, or the export format details beyond 'STEP'.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It successfully conveys the core purpose and key parameter in a concise manner.

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 (1 optional param, output schema present) and the annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks important usage context. It does not explain how this alias differs from the similar 'export_3d_step' sibling, nor does it mention the destructive implication or file output behavior, leaving gaps that structured data only partially fill.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does mention 'optional explicit output path', which gives meaning to the single 'output_path' parameter. However, it does not explain path format, default behavior, or relationship to the schema's default empty string, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool as an alias for STEP export, with the specific addition of an optional explicit output path. It conveys the resource (STEP export) and a distinguishing feature (output path), though it does not differentiate it from the sibling tool export_3d_step.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The term 'alias' implies a shortcut, but no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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