rhino_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the supported file formats and object scope, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral details like overwrite behavior, error handling, or that the tool writes an external file, so it adds only moderate context beyond annotations.

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 stating the action and key formats. Every word earns its place; it is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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, the description and schema cover the essentials: what to export, where to export, and supported formats. An output schema exists, so return details are presumably handled. Minor gaps remain, such as overwrite behavior and error conditions, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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 input schema includes descriptions for both parameters: filepath explains the output path with formats, and guids explains that None means entire scene. Since the schema fully documents them, the description doesn't need to compensate. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation (export), the resource (objects or entire scene), and the output formats, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like rhino_import_file, but the verb 'export' and the file destination distinguish it well enough.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context such as 'use when you need to save geometry to disk.' There is no mention of selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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