rhino_area_centroid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns a dict with centroid coordinates and implies a read-only calculation, but it does not explain behavior when no surfaces are selected, whether multiple surfaces produce a combined centroid or individual results, or any error conditions.

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 short and the purpose is front-loaded, but the 'Args: controller' line is redundant and inaccurate given the empty input schema. Not every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter query tool with an output schema, this is close to sufficient: the purpose and return type are stated. However, it lacks important operational context about the selection prerequisite, behavior with no selection, and whether multiple surfaces yield one combined centroid or per-surface centroids.

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 input schema has zero properties, so the baseline is 4; however, the description lists 'controller: RhinoController instance' under Args even though no such parameter appears in the schema. This phantom argument adds noise and could mislead an agent into passing an unsupported parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate the area centroid (centre of mass) of selected surfaces.' This distinguishes it from related tools like rhino_area (area only) and rhino_volume_centroid (volume centroid).

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 phrase 'of selected surfaces' implies that surfaces must already be selected, but the description never explicitly states this prerequisite or when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as rhino_area or rhino_volume_centroid. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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