rhino_shadow_project

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation, which aligns with the description. The description adds context about two modes and their output quality but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as performance, authorization needs, or side effects.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the main action. However, the mention of 'bridges mode' could be clearer for users unfamiliar with the term.

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?

The description covers the two modes and their outputs adequately for a moderate-complexity tool, but lacks parameter documentation. Given the presence of an output schema, the omission of return value details is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters such as object_ids, sun_vector, ground_z, layer, or doc_id. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 action ('project objects' bounding-box corners along sun_vector to the ground plane') and distinguishes between two modes (standalone and bridge), making the purpose specific and differentiating it from sibling 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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any conditions or exclusions mentioned. The description only implies usage by describing the output of two modes.

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