rhino_duplicate_border

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Duplicate' without explaining side effects, whether new objects are created, or what happens to the originals. No mention of the return value or any other behavioral traits beyond the bare action.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and clearly identifies the target. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no fluff or 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?

The description omits crucial context such as the distinction from the sibling rhino_duplicate_edge, whether the duplicate is a new independent object, and what the tool returns. Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to give the agent enough to fully understand the operation's behavior.

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 schema already describes the lone parameter 'guid' as 'GUID of the surface/brep/mesh', and the description adds no further meaning or context. With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description should compensate, but it remains silent on parameter usage or formatting.

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 (duplicate) and the resource (border/naked edge curves) with specific object types (surface, brep, mesh). It distinguishes itself from the sibling rhino_duplicate_edge by focusing on border/naked edges, which is a more specific subset, so an agent can tell when to use this over that.

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 alternatives like rhino_duplicate_edge or rhino_get_naked_edges. It does not state prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. The description leaves the choice to inference from the name and minimal text.

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