rhino_area

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool works only on mesh objects and mentions a constraint (Brep area needs a bridge). This goes beyond what annotations convey, providing useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every word adds value, with no wasted content.

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 (1 parameter, annotations, output schema present), the description covers the core function and a key constraint (mesh vs. Brep). It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is sufficient for basic usage.

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. However, it does not mention the input parameters (args, doc_id, object_id) or their meaning. The agent gets no guidance on how to specify the object or document, which is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it computes surface area of a mesh, with a verb ('compute') and resource ('area of a mesh'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rhino_volume (volume) by specifying mesh surface area, and notes Brep area requires a different approach ('bridge').

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 explicitly says 'Brep area requires bridge', indicating this tool is for meshes only, which guides when to use it vs. alternatives. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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