rhino_curvature_analysis

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows the tool is non-destructive. The description adds 'bridge required' as crucial behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose details about the sampling process, output format, or any side effects.

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 efficiently communicates the core purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word serves a purpose without extraneous detail.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal for the complexity of the tool. It does not explain what 'sample' entails, whether multiple curvature types are computed, or how results are presented. Parameter semantics are missing, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of parameters. The required parameter 'object_id' is not clarified as a surface identifier, and optional 'doc_id' is ignored. The description fails to add value beyond the bare schema structure.

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 action (sample) and resource (Gaussian/mean curvature of a surface). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rhino_surface_curvature_at, which performs point evaluation, by using 'sample' implying broader assessment. The prerequisite 'bridge required' adds specificity.

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 implies usage for curvature analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_surface_curvature_at or rhino_zebra. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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