rhino_project_to_surface

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

Annotations are minimally informative (all hints false) and do not convey safety or idempotency. The description does not disclose whether the operation creates new curves, modifies existing ones, or what happens if the projection fails. It offers no behavioral detail beyond the core action, leaving the agent unaware of side effects or return behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded, but excessively terse. It consists of a single sentence that is clear but lacks necessary context. While conciseness is maintained, the structure is too minimal to be considered well-rounded for a tool with multiple parameters and potential side effects.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple inputs, a direction vector, and a projection operation), the description is incomplete. It does not mention the output format (e.g., new curve GUIDs), any error conditions, or typical use cases. Although an output schema exists, the description still fails to explain what the tool returns and how the result relates to the input geometry.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It merely restates the general action without explaining the direction vector's role, the semantics of multiple curve GUIDs, or the required target. The description falls far short of compensating for the schema's lack of explanatory text.

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 explicitly states the action ('Project'), the object (curves), and the target (a brep/surface) along a direction. This clearly communicates the tool's core function and differentiates it from creation tools like rhino_create_curve or rhino_offset_curve. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar projection-related tools like rhino_intersect or rhino_closest_point, so it falls short of full distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as curves needing to be planar or the direction vector being non-zero, nor does it say anything about when a different projection method might be preferable. No exclusions or specific conditions for use are given.

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