rhino_export_iges

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

readOnlyHint: false already signals a write-style operation, and the description is consistent with that. It does add one useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations — the dependency on a bridge — which the annotations do not convey. However, it fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as file overwrite behavior, whether the export targets the whole document, or failure modes.

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 extremely short and front-loads the key caveat, so there is no wasted text. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness: a five-word fragment for a tool with three parameters and a bridge dependency.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations signal the write nature, the description is incomplete for an export tool: it never states that the output is written to the given path, does not explain the bridge prerequisite or its failure implications, and provides no guidance on the object_ids restriction beyond what the schema already says.

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% per the context signal, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but "Export to IGES (bridge required)" says nothing about path, doc_id, or object_ids. The schema itself documents doc_id and object_ids, which carries some weight, but the required path argument is left unexplained and the description adds zero parameter meaning.

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?

"Export to IGES" restates the tool name (rhino_export_iges) nearly verbatim, making it a tautology rather than a substantive definition. The only added element is the "bridge required" caveat. It also fails to differentiate from the many sibling export tools (rhino_export_step, rhino_export_obj, rhino_export_dxf, rhino_export_ifc, rhino_export_gbxml).

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 given about when to choose IGES over STEP/OBJ/DXF/STL or other export formats, and no exclusions are stated. "Bridge required" alludes to a prerequisite but says nothing about the conditions or workflow in which this tool should be selected.

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