rhino_get_curvature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns multiple values and handles both curves and surfaces, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid inputs (e.g., out-of-range parameters) or clarify whether both curve and surface parameters are accepted simultaneously. This is a moderate gap but not contradictory.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and output, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 handles both curves and surfaces with different parameterization, the description omits essential usage details: how to specify the point for each type (parameter vs. u/v), and that the `guid` can be a curve or surface but only one set of parameters should be provided. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the input specification is incomplete and could lead to incorrect calls.

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%, meaning the tool description provides no explanation of parameters. The schema itself gives minimal labels ('U parameter on surface', 'V parameter on surface', 'Parameter on curve (None = midpoint)'), but the description does not clarify which parameters apply to curves versus surfaces—a critical distinction. The agent must infer from the schema that `parameter` is for curves and `u`/`v` for surfaces, but the description adds no guidance, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the exact action (get curvature), the target (a point on a curve or surface), and lists the outputs (curvature, radius, tangent, gaussian/mean for surfaces). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling query tools like rhino_get_area or rhino_get_length, which target different geometric properties.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions stated. The description simply states what the tool does without contextual cues like 'use for curvature analysis' or 'prefer this over rhino_closest_point for derivative queries.' The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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