rhino_get_volume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name/title state – it does not mention units, failure conditions, whether the solid must be closed, or what happens if an invalid GUID is passed. With zero additional context, it fails to enrich the annotation-covered traits.

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 concise sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is short and to the point, which is appropriate for such a simple tool. However, it is slightly under-specified – a bit more detail on the input would be useful, but as a summary it is efficient.

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 tool is simple – one required parameter and an output schema exists – but the description omits any mention of the GUID parameter, the requirement that the object be a closed solid (though implied), and any indication of the return value (e.g., volume in cubic units). Since the schema coverage is 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining how to use the tool, and it falls short. An agent would likely struggle to know it must pass a GUID of a solid.

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 description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The schema has one parameter, params (GuidInput), requiring a GUID, but the description never mentions that a GUID must be provided or that it should reference a closed solid. The description adds no meaning beyond what the sparse schema already states, so it fails to help the agent understand the parameter's purpose.

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 (calculate) and a specific resource (volume of a closed solid), which makes it clear this tool computes volume. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like rhino_get_area or rhino_get_length, so it does not fully distinguish from them, but the resource type is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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 through the phrase 'closed solid' – an agent can infer this is for closed solids only. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., the object must be a valid Rhino solid).

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