rhino_sweep2

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what the annotation (readOnlyHint=false) already indicates. It does not mention that this operation creates a new surface, any error conditions, input requirements (e.g., rail curves must be non-intersecting), 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 extremely concise at six words, which is front-loaded but may be too terse. While every word earns its place, the brevity sacrifices necessary context. It is efficient but could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

For a complex surface creation tool with six parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the type of profiles or rails required, any constraints, or the result of the operation. Although an output schema exists, the description fails to provide essential context for correct usage.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema parameter names. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining parameters like rail1_id, rail2_id, profile_ids, but it does not. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional clarity.

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 'Sweep profiles along two rails' clearly states the action (sweep), the resources (profiles), and the specific number of rails (two), which distinguishes this tool from its sibling rhino_sweep1. The annotation title 'Sweep2 (two rails)' reinforces this specificity.

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 rhino_sweep2 versus alternatives like rhino_sweep1 or rhino_loft. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which this tool is preferred.

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