rhino_match_surface

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the surface is modified in place, what happens on failure, or any side effects. Annotations are minimal (only a title) and do not compensate.

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, efficient and to the point. It could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness, but it is not verbose or cluttered.

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 complexity of matching surface continuity, the description is too brief. It does not explain the operation's effect, edge cases, or how the continuity parameter interacts with the surfaces. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but overall context is lacking.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three nested parameters (surface_id, target_id, continuity). The description adds no additional meaning to these parameters beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'adjust', the resource 'surface edge', and the objective 'to match the continuity of a target surface'. It is specific and distinguishes from general surface creation tools, though it could more explicitly differentiate from blending or filleting tools.

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 like rhino_blend_surface or rhino_fillet_surface. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., surfaces must be adjacent) or conditions for use.

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