rhino_is_point_on_surface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the notion of tolerance, which is relevant context but also present in the parameter schema. No additional behavioral side effects are disclosed, but none are expected for a read-only 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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and key condition. Perfectly concise for the task.

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 simple query tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (check point on surface) and key constraint (tolerance). It lacks explicit mentions of return type, but the output schema handles that. Minor gap: no guidance on when to use versus similar checks, but not critical for a simple read-only query.

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 schema provides detailed descriptions for each parameter ('Surface/brep GUID', 'Test point', 'Distance tolerance'). The description adds nothing beyond mentioning 'within tolerance', which slightly reinforces the purpose but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource 'if a point lies on a surface within tolerance'. It distinguishes from similar query tools like rhino_is_point_in_solid by specifying surface rather than solid, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 verifying point-on-surface coincidence but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar queries (e.g., rhino_closest_point or rhino_is_point_in_solid). No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the surface focus.

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