rhino_curve_continuity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by listing specific checks (span count, closed flag, planarity, etc.) beyond the basic safety profile. It does not contradict annotations. No side effects are mentioned, but that is consistent with a read-only operation.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that packs essential information (purpose and key properties). No wasted words; perfectly sized for quick understanding.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations are provided (readOnlyHint), the description is largely complete. It mentions what the tool checks, which is sufficient for a validation tool. Could optionally mention that it returns a report, but output schema covers that.

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 does not add meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. Schema descriptions for 'doc_id' and 'object_id' are present, covering the parameters. The tool description adds no further semantics, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: checking curve sanity (span count, closed flag, planarity, periodic, validity log). It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like rhino_curve_length or rhino_curve_split which perform different operations on curves.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. Implies usage for curve validation but lacks comparative context.

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