rhino_curve_length

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds value by specifying the output includes parametric domain and approximate length, which is beyond the annotations. However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., regarding precision or performance) are disclosed.

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 conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and result.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, read-only query) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential output. It mentions both aspects of the result (parametric domain and length). However, it could be slightly more complete by noting that the tool does not modify the curve, but annotations already imply 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 provides no information about the required parameter (curve reference). Schema description coverage is 0% (per context signal), meaning the tool description does not explain what the 'args' parameter expects. The schema itself has descriptions for doc_id and object_id, but the tool description fails to clarify how to provide the curve or its meaning.

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 returns the curve's parametric domain and approximate length, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('curve's parametric domain and approximate length'). This distinguishes it from sibling curve tools that do other operations like point at parameter or split.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify when it is appropriate or inappropriate, nor mentions any preconditions or alternatives among the many sibling curve tools.

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