import_step_file

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions backends (FreeCAD, Gmsh, CadQuery) and multi-body merging/splitting. However, it omits behaviors like error handling, file overwriting, or permission requirements, which 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 structured with a brief intro, a paragraph on backends and workflow, and a docstring-style Args list. It is front-loaded and contains no waste, though the backend list could be slightly more concise.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions converting to STL but does not specify the return value (e.g., file paths or success message). It also lacks error cases or size limits, leaving gaps for a complex tool.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter: file_path (path), output_format (only stl), merge_bodies (merge or split), and output_dir (defaults to parent). This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 it imports a STEP file and converts to STL for Kiln's mesh pipeline. It distinguishes from siblings like step_file_info and merge_stl by specifying the conversion process and multi-body handling.

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 tells when to use: it recommends using check_step_support first and suggests diagnose_mesh or analyze_mesh_geometry after. It provides a clear workflow but does not explicitly mention 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.