rhino_check_naked_edges

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

The description adds transparent details beyond annotations: it reveals the internal call to Rhino.Geometry.Brep.GetNakedEdges and the return format (list of edge_index and length plus gap count). Annotations already mark it as read-only, so no 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 incredibly concise: two sentences plus a note on bridge mode. Every sentence adds value, front-loading the core action and constraints without clutter.

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 complexity, the description covers the essential: purpose, bridge-only restriction, and output format. It could mention potential errors or empty results, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 has parameter descriptions (e.g., doc_id, object_id), but the tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage (as per context), the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 tool enumerates naked edges of a Brep with lengths, specifying the bridge-only mode. It distinguishes from standalone rhino3dm's lack of capability and from sibling tools like rhino_validate_brep.

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 explains when to use (bridge mode) and that standalone cannot; however, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though the context of bridge-only is clear.

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