rhino_export_step

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

It adds one useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: the export requires a bridge. However, it does not disclose file-creation behavior, overwrite semantics, or what happens if the bridge is unavailable, and annotations only say readOnlyHint=false.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes. This is a model of concise specification.

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?

For an export operation, the description omits whether a file is written to path, how optional object_ids scope the export, and the expected failure mode without the bridge. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input and prerequisite side are still under-specified.

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 description contributes no information about the tool's parameters or how path, doc_id, and object_ids relate to the export. Since schema description coverage is reported as 0%, the description leaves parameter semantics almost entirely to inference from 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 names a specific verb ('Export') and a concrete resource ('STEP'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling exporters such as rhino_export_obj, rhino_export_stl, and rhino_export_dxf. The parenthetical 'bridge required' does not obscure the purpose.

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 purpose implies the tool is for producing STEP files, so use context is inferable, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose it over the many sibling export tools or when not to use it. The only additional usage signal is the bridge prerequisite.

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