export_stl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Export selected or all shaped objects to STL' and does not mention whether the file is overwritten, whether a document must be open, what happens to the file path, or what output is returned. The output schema may cover return values, but the description lacks meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose. It loses a point because the terseness leaves no room for usage or behavioral guidance, but as conciseness alone it is strong.

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 four parameters, zero annotations, and no schema parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain the meaning of multiple parameters, the side effects of writing a file, and when to use this tool versus siblings. The output schema might document return values, but that does not compensate for the missing usage and behavioral context.

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 for all four parameters, but it only vaguely hints at object_names with 'selected or all shaped objects'. It does not explain file_path, doc_name, or mesh_tolerance. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's raw parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a specific resource ('selected or all shaped objects'), and the target format ('STL'). It clearly differentiates from sibling export_step by naming the STL format, and from import_stl by the export direction. This gives an agent enough to idntify the tool's core funtion.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage through the format name, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose export_stl over export_step, import_stl, or other file-related tools. An agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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