rhino_is_point_in_solid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate these. It adds the requirement that the solid must be closed, which is useful. However, it does not disclose boundary behavior (e.g., whether a point on the surface counts as inside) or any tolerance considerations, which are relevant for a geometric containment check.

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, concise sentence states the core functionality without any fluff. It front-loads the purpose immediately and contains no redundant information. The brevity is appropriate for a simple, read-only query tool.

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 straightforward containment check, the description is mostly adequate, especially with a rich output schema available. However, it omits practical details such as how to interpret results for points on the boundary, whether the solid must be manifold, and any performance implications. It also does not clarify what happens if an invalid or open solid GUID is supplied. These gaps could lead to incorrect agent assumptions.

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 description provides no parameter-specific information; it only describes the operation abstractly. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not. While the input schema itself contains descriptive field names and help text for guid and point, the tool description adds no additional meaning. This is a gap given the low coverage.

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 ('Check') and resource ('point inside a closed solid'), clearly distinguishing it from similar tools like rhino_is_point_on_surface by specifying 'closed solid'. The name itself is also descriptive, reinforcing the purpose without ambiguity.

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 for solids ('closed solid') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as rhino_is_point_on_surface or rhino_intersect. There is no guidance on when not to use it, though the context of 'closed solid' provides some implicit direction.

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