rhino_surface_developable_score

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds significant behavioral detail: sampling grid, computation method, output metrics (max/mean/RMS, normalized score), and meaning of values. 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 a single paragraph with clear structure: main purpose, method, output interpretation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, method, and result interpretation. Minor missing details like prerequisites or limitations, but overall complete.

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 partial (doc_id and surface_id have descriptions, sample_u/sample_v only have constraints). The description explains that sampling uses (sample_u+1)x(sample_v+1) grid, adding meaning to the numeric parameters beyond the schema.

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 estimates how far a surface deviates from developable, with specific verb ('Estimate'), resource ('surface'), and algorithmic details (sampling grid normals, max angle). It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools like curvature or planarity.

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 explains what the tool does and interprets results (0 for developable, positive for sphere), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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