rhino_boolean_split

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 not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it modifies objects in place, whether pre-selection is needed, or how the controller drives the split. It only restates the action without behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core operation stated first and no filler. The Args line is brief, though it arguably belongs in the schema. Overall it earns high marks for conciseness, though it sacrifices substance.

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 boolean operation with an empty input schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits how objects are chosen, what counts as a cutting surface, whether the original objects are preserved, and what the output contains. An agent would have to guess or inspect sibling tools for context.

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, yet the description lists an 'Args: controller' parameter that is absent from the schema. This mismatch is confusing rather than clarifying. With 0 parameters the description could add context about how objects are selected or specified, but it does not; it only introduces an undocumented 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 states a clear operation: 'Boolean split: split objects with cutting surfaces / polysurfaces.' It names a specific verb (split), a resource (objects), and the cutting geometry type (surfaces/polysurfaces), which helps distinguish it from curve-oriented split tools like rhino_split. It could be more explicit about the difference from boolean_difference, but it is not vague or tautological.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_boolean_difference, rhino_boolean_intersection, or rhino_split. The one-line description implies its purpose but never explains contexts, prerequisites (e.g., selected objects, cutting geometry), or when a different boolean operation would be more appropriate.

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