rhino_uv_grid_panels

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: that output='mesh' writes a quad mesh, 'curves' writes isocurves, and 'corners' only returns points without writing geometry. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation (false) by clarifying write behavior per mode. No contradictions 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 exceptionally concise: a single sentence for the main purpose, then a clear list of three output modes. No redundant words, fully front-loaded. 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and multiple parameters, the description covers the core variant behaviors. It does not mention document modification side effects (writing vs returning) beyond what is implied, nor prerequisites like surface selection. Still, it provides enough context for a competent agent to use the tool appropriately.

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 tool description succinctly explains the three output modes, which adds context to the 'output' parameter beyond its schema description. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters like count_u, count_v, surface_id, which remain solely documented in the schema. With schema descriptions already present, the description adds moderate value.

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 samples a surface on a UV grid and emits panels. It specifies three output modes, which gives a precise understanding of the operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like rhino_panelize_surface or rhino_create_uv_grid, missing a chance to clarify its unique role.

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 only explains functionality without mentioning prerequisites or exclusion criteria. For a tool with many related siblings, this is a significant gap.

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