rhino_intersect

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it 'Creates intersection curves' which gives some behavioral nuance, but it does not describe edge cases (e.g., when objects do not intersect, or behavior for non-surface/brep types). Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 long and gets directly to the point. It avoids fluff and front-loads the core function. It could be slightly more detailed on usage, but as a concise statement it is well-structured and 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?

While the tool is simple with only two parameters, the description lacks guidance on object type compatibility (e.g., curves, surfaces, breps) and what happens when no intersection exists. The existence of an output schema partially compensates for return-value documentation, but the lack of exclusions or error conditions leaves some gaps for an agent invoking this tool.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only refers to 'two geometric objects' without clarifying which GUID corresponds to which object or whether order matters. The names 'guid_a' and 'guid_b' are self-explanatory to Rhino users, but the description adds no extra semantic value beyond a generic reference.

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 verb 'Find intersection' and the resource 'two geometric objects', and specifies that it creates intersection curves for surfaces/breps. This distinguishes it from similar tools like rhino_boolean_intersection, which computes a boolean result rather than just intersection geometry. The purpose is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_boolean_intersection, rhino_trim, or rhino_split, which also rely on intersections. The description does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred or when another is more appropriate.

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