rhino_report_mesh_health

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to re-state that. The description adds that it reports specific health metrics, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, performance). Adequate but not exemplary.

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 extremely concise (one line), which is good for conciseness. However, it sacrifices completeness. Still, it is well-structured with a clear focus on the tool's output.

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 has a required parameter with no schema description, the description should explain the parameter semantics. It also does not clarify the return value format, though an output schema exists (not shown). The description covers the output content but misses input context, making it incomplete for a production 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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool's description does not describe the parameters at all, leaving ambiguity about what object_id expects (a GUID? name?) and the doc_id default. This is a significant gap.

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 explicitly states the tool reports on mesh health, listing specific checks: closed, manifold, vertex/face counts, validity log. This clearly identifies the tool's resource and action, and distinguishes it from siblings like rhino_validate_brep which validates breps.

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. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without any usage context.

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