rhino_panel_frames

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

The description uses 'Generate' which could imply creating geometry, conflicting with the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not clarify whether the tool modifies the document or only computes and returns. Annotations provide readOnlyHint, but the description contradicts by implying creation.

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 short but misses critical information. It is under-specified rather than concisely complete. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single sentence leaves major gaps.

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 complexity (5 parameters, output schema, nested structure), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the frames are, how parameters affect the result, or what the output represents.

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 any parameter. It does not explain the roles of object_id, u_count, v_count, offset, or layer. Schema coverage is 0%, so the burden is entirely on the description, which 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 clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'oriented frames (planes) at panel centres' with the context 'for construction'. It distinguishes from siblings like rhino_uv_grid_panels or rhino_panelize_surface by specifying 'panel centres' and 'frames'.

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 provides no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not guide the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_uv_grid_panels or rhino_panel_planarity.

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