rhino_get_naked_edges

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds value by explicitly stating the tool 'duplicates' edges and explaining the meaning of naked edges. This clarifies that it creates new geometry (not destructive) and serves an analysis purpose, complementing the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Find and duplicate') and the resource, followed by a helpful explanatory clause. No wasted words, and the purpose is immediately clear.

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 single-parameter analysis/duplication tool with an output schema available, the description covers the core function and its rationale. It lacks explicit notes on input constraints (e.g., brep required) or error behavior, but these are minor for a tool this simple. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 sole parameter (guid) has minimal schema description ('Object GUID'), and the tool description does not explicitly state that the guid must reference a brep. It is only implied by 'of a brep', leaving the agent to infer the required object type. Given 0% schema coverage, the description fails to fully compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find and duplicate') with a clear resource ('naked (unjoined) edges of a brep') and adds explanatory context about what these edges indicate. It distinguishes the tool's analytical purpose from creation/transformation siblings, making the intent unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (to identify gaps preventing a closed solid) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools are more appropriate, so usage context is only inferred.

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