rhino_dup_edge

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

Annotations are minimal (only title), so the description bears full burden. It states 'Extract' which implies a read operation (copying edges), but does not confirm non-destructive behavior, error handling for invalid indices, or whether the original Brep is modified. This lack of detail reduces transparency.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded but could benefit from slightly more context without becoming overly verbose.

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 has three parameters (object_id, layer, edge_indices) and an output schema, the description lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., Brep must exist), error states, and parameter interplay. The minimal description is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 only adds 'all or specific indices', which is already covered by the edge_indices schema description. It does not mention the required object_id or optional layer parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. Thus the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Extract', the resource 'edge curves from a Brep', and the scope 'all or specific indices'. This is specific and distinguishes from siblings like rhino_dup_border (which extracts borders) or rhino_isocurve (which extracts isocurves).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as rhino_dup_border or rhino_curve_split. Usage is implied but not clarified with when-not or alternative recommendations.

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