rhino_export_stl

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=false, the description conveys a file-writing side effect ('to an ASCII STL file'). However, it does not disclose whether an existing file at the given path is overwritten, whether the Rhino document itself is mutated, or what happens when no meshes exist or object_ids filters everything out. With only a bare annotation, these behavioral details are left uncovered.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with zero filler. The core facts (export, meshes, ASCII STL) are front-loaded, and the size is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Adequate for a simple export operation: the schema documents doc_id and object_ids, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But key context is missing — no guidance among the large export-tool family, no overwrite or error behavior, and no explicit statement that this is a file-system write rather than an in-document change.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it never mentions the required 'path', 'doc_id', or 'object_ids'. The only implicit hint is that 'path' is the file destination; the object-scoping and document-targeting semantics are entirely unaddressed by the description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('meshes'), and format ('ASCII STL file'), adding value beyond the tool name through the 'meshes' scope and the 'ASCII' encoding detail. It implicitly separates itself from sibling exporters like rhino_export_obj or rhino_export_step, though it never names them, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 on when to choose STL over the many competing export tools in the sibling list (rhino_export_obj, rhino_export_step, rhino_export_iges, rhino_export_dxf, rhino_export_ifc, etc.). No prerequisites, exclusions, or hints about mesh-based vs geometry-based workflow needs. The agent must infer the appropriate use case 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.