rhino_solar_exposure_estimate

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint), the description discloses the algorithm: sampling time range, ray casting, counting lit samples, and returning a 0-1 ratio. It also notes the 'bridge only' constraint. This provides useful behavioral insight, though it could mention performance or assumptions.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences. First sentence states purpose directly; second sentence explains the method. No filler, well front-loaded, and 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?

While it explains the algorithm and return value, the description is incomplete given low schema coverage and 9 parameters. It does not cover parameter semantics, constraints (e.g., only bridge), or how the time range and location affect results. An output schema exists but is not shown; description could be more helpful.

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 coverage is low (<50%) with only 3 of 9 parameters having descriptions. The description does not explain any parameter meaning beyond the high-level algorithm. It fails to compensate for undocumented parameters like latitude, longitude, hour_range, and step_minutes, which are critical for use.

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's purpose: 'Estimate cumulative solar exposure (lit minutes / total minutes) on an object (bridge only).' It specifies the verb (estimate), resource (solar exposure on an object), and scope (bridge only), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like sun position or shadow projection.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when it is appropriate (e.g., need for a bridge object), or why other solar tools might be better suited. With many sibling tools, explicit context would help.

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