rhino_cap_planar_holes

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the operation makes the brep solid, which is a useful outcome. However, it does not clarify whether the original object is modified in place or a new object is returned. The description does not contradict annotations, but it adds little beyond what the annotation already implies.

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, compact sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and clearly states the goal. Every word is necessary and 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is adequate. It explains what the tool does without needing to detail return values or edge cases. While it could mention limitations (e.g., non-planar openings), the minimal scope makes it largely 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?

There is only one parameter, 'guid', which the schema already describes as 'GUID of the open brep to cap'. The tool description does not add any additional semantic context about the parameter. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, a 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Cap'), a precise resource ('all planar openings on an open brep'), and the intended outcome ('make it solid'). It clearly distinguishes this operation from sibling tools like rhino_boolean_union or rhino_join, which address different kinds of geometry transformations.

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 you have an open brep with planar openings and want to seal it. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., non-planar openings) or alternatives. For a simple operation this is adequate, but it does not actively direct the agent toward or away from specific scenarios.

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