rhino_distance

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows the operation is safe and idempotent. The description adds 'Euclidean' which specifies the distance metric, but does not disclose any edge cases (e.g., behavior with invalid input). With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise (5 words) and to the point. Every word is meaningful. No redundancy.

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?

For a simple, well-defined tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the geometry type (points) and distance type (Euclidean). The only missing piece is explicit mention of units or document context, but these are commonly understood for Euclidian distance in Rhino.

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, the description is only one sentence and does not explain the parameters point_a and point_b beyond what the schema's property descriptions already provide. It adds no extra meaning to the input parameters.

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 'Euclidean distance between two points', specifying the verb ('distance') and the resource ('two points'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that compute other geometric properties like lengths, areas, or volumes.

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. Among siblings, there are no other distance tools, but a user might benefit from knowing this is for 3D distance or that it doesn't handle curves. The description lacks this context.

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