rhino_evaluate_surface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the returned data (point, normal, tangents). No contradictions. The description provides context beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word earns its place.

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?

Description omits prerequisites (e.g., surface must exist, object_id validity, UV domain bounds). While output schema may cover return values, usage context is incomplete for a read-only evaluation tool.

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%. Description mentions 'UV parameters' but does not explain the parameters u, v, or object_id. It partially adds meaning by implying u and v are coordinates, but does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'evaluate', resource 'surface', inputs 'UV parameters', and outputs '3D point, normal, and tangents'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rhino_surface_normal_at and rhino_surface_curvature_at by specifying all three outputs.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (when you need point, normal, tangents from UV), but no explicit when-not or alternatives are provided, despite multiple sibling tools with overlapping purposes.

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