rhino_zebra

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds value by specifying that a bridge is required, which is a behavioral constraint beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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?

A single sentence with a parenthetical note. No wasted words; the information is front-loaded and direct. Every part contributes to understanding.

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, an output schema exists, and annotations cover read-only status. The description covers the purpose and a key prerequisite. It could mention that it analyzes surface continuity, but that is implicit. Overall, it is mostly complete for a straightforward analysis tool.

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 0% per context, meaning the description must compensate. However, the description does not mention the parameters (doc_id, object_id) or their purpose. The schema itself has a description for doc_id but not object_id, leaving the agent without clarity on what the required parameter 'object_id' refers to.

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 action ('run'), the specific resource ('zebra-stripe surface continuity analysis'), and a prerequisite ('bridge required'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like rhino_curve_continuity or rhino_curvature_analysis by its specific focus on surface continuity via zebra stripes.

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 implicitly indicates when to use (for surface continuity analysis) and provides a prerequisite ('bridge required'), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use. Sibling tools exist for other analysis types, but no direct guidance is given.

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