rhino_area

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint beyond annotations: the tool computes area for meshes only, and Brep area requires a bridge—this tells the agent that passing a Brep object_id will not work as expected. No contradiction with annotations; the description complements them.

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 short sentence with a parenthetical note—every word earns its place and the main action is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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 read-only query tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential domain constraint (mesh-only) and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. The main gaps are not naming a concrete alternative for Brep area and not mentioning units of the returned area, but these are minor given the annotations and output schema.

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 reported at 0%, though doc_id actually has an inline description; object_id is only labeled 'Object Id.' The description's 'of a mesh' adds the crucial semantic that object_id should reference a mesh object, which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't clarify doc_id semantics or the expected output, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Compute the surface area of a mesh,' which is clear and unambiguous. The parenthetical '(Brep area requires bridge)' adds scope and hints at a limitation, distinguishing it from Brep-related area tools like rhino_cmd_area and rhino_area_centroid. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 parenthetical implies the tool is intended for meshes and that Brep inputs are out of scope ('Brep area requires bridge'), which gives the agent a condition for when not to use it. But it stops at implication—it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or state 'use X for Brep area.' No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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