rhino_mesh_from_surface

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the action. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no information about side effects, required permissions, or whether the original surface is modified.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it omits necessary context and is not front-loaded with critical information. It is not structured effectively.

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's moderate complexity (multiple parameters, siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain 'bridge only', parameter usage, or output. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but usage 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 description adds no meaning to parameters. The schema itself provides descriptions for doc_id and quality, but the tool's description does not explain the required object_id or optional name/layer. Given the context of 0% schema description coverage at the top level, the description should compensate but fails.

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 'Mesh a surface (bridge only)' clearly states the action (mesh) and target (surface), with a qualification ('bridge only') that helps distinguish from other mesh tools. However, the term 'bridge only' is ambiguous without explanation.

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_mesh_from_brep or rhino_mesh_box. The description lacks prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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