rhino_distance

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description does not add behavioral nuance (e.g., units, object type support, or error behavior), but for a simple read-only distance calc the annotation coverage is adequate. No contradiction with the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the complete operational essence with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 two-GUID read-only distance calculator, the description plus schema and annotations cover the essential calling contract. An output schema is present (though not shown), and the operation is trivial. The only gap is lack of usage context relative to sibling tools, but that is a usage-guidelines concern, not a completeness one.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('First object GUID' and 'Second object GUID'), so schema coverage is effectively complete. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters (e.g., what object types are valid, ordering importance, or coordinate systems), but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's own documentation.

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 clear verb ('calculate') and resource ('distance') with two objects as operands. It is specific enough to distinguish from direct geometric operations like rhino_intersect or rhino_closest_point, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 this tool versus others (e.g., rhino_closest_point for proximity queries or rhino_get_length for curve length). The description gives no context about suitability or edge cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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