rhino_panel_planarity

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

The description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it samples a grid, computes planarity error, flags cells exceeding tolerance, and returns summary statistics. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which only indicates no side effects. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise, consisting of 4-5 sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses no superfluous words. Every sentence adds value.

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 (grid sampling, planarity calculation) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and output (stats block). It does not detail the per-cell results, but the output schema presumably handles that. Slight gap in not mentioning that the report includes per-cell data, but overall acceptable.

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 meaning to the grid dimensions (UxV) and tolerance parameter by explaining the planarity error calculation. However, it does not elaborate on doc_id or surface_id, which are already described in the schema. Given the context's schema description coverage of 0%, the description compensates well but not exhaustively.

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 tool computes a per-panel planarity report on a UxV grid sampled from a surface. It explains the calculation method (distance of 4th corner from plane fitted through first three) and the output includes flagged cells and a stats block. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like curvature analysis.

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 any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The sibling tools include many surface analysis tools, but no comparison is offered.

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