export_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only conveys scope ('selected or all') and format, but does not mention file overwriting behavior, handling of empty selections, what 'shaped objects' means, or what happens when object_names and doc_name are omitted.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though the lack of supporting detail is a structural limitation.

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?

While an output schema exists and reduces the need to explain return values, the description is too sparse for a 3-parameter export tool with no annotations. Critical invocation details like the meaning of doc_name, the role of file_path, and the exact behavior of object_names are missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters. It partially clarifies object_names by contrasting 'selected or all', but file_path and doc_name semantics are entirely absent.

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 a specific verb ('Export'), a resource ('selected or all shaped objects'), and the output format ('STEP'). This distinguishes it from sibling export_stl by format, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 the tool is used when exporting objects to STEP format, and 'selected or all' gives a basic scoping hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over export_stl or mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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