rhino_validate_brep

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. Description adds valuable behavioral details: checks for validity, solidity, manifold, counts, and logs issues, plus bridge mode adds naked-edge info. Does not cover rate limits or permissions, but these are less critical for a read-only tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. First sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and scope; second sentence details modes 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 simplicity (single object parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description covers key validation aspects and mode distinction. Minor omission: no guidance on when to use standalone vs bridge mode.

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?

Input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (doc_id and object_id), so the description adds no extra semantic value. Although schema coverage is reported as 0%, actual schema has descriptions, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it validates a Brep, checking closed/solid/manifold status and face/edge counts. It distinguishes between standalone and bridge modes, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `rhino_check_naked_edges` or `rhino_object_info`.

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 usage when validation of a Brep is needed but provides no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and does not compare to alternative tools.

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