rhino_shell

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to reiterate that it is destructive. The description adds one behavioral detail: 'optionally leaving listed faces open'. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like how thickness is applied (inward/outward) or error conditions.

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 a single sentence that is clear and direct without any superfluous words. It effectively communicates the core functionality.

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?

Considering the complexity of shelling (closed Brep requirement, thickness direction, open face indices, return value), the description is too minimal. It lacks details on prerequisites, edge cases (e.g., non-closed Breps), and output behavior (likely a new shelled Brep). An output schema exists but doesn't compensate for missing context.

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%, so the description must provide parameter meanings. It mentions 'closed Brep' (object_id) and 'listed faces open' (open_face_indices) but fails to describe 'thickness' (direction, sign), 'name', 'layer', or 'doc_id' semantics. This is insufficient for a 0% coverage scenario.

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 ('hollow'), the target resource ('closed Brep'), and the optional behavior ('leaving listed faces open'). It distinguishes from other solid modeling tools like boolean operations or cap_holes, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for hollowing closed Breps but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., offset surface, boolean difference). No guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for non-closed Breps) or required prerequisites.

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