rhino_cap_planar_holes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the intended geometric transformation but does not say whether the original objects are modified in place, what happens if no planar holes are found, or how selection is determined.

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 main functional sentence is concise, accurate, and front-loaded. The 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance.' line is slightly redundant given the empty input schema, but it is short and not misleading.

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?

This is adequate for a simple no-parameter tool: the core purpose and target geometry are clear. However, with no annotations, it leaves unspecified how the tool selects or affects objects, and it does not differentiate itself from the similar rhino_cap_holes and rhino_close_hole siblings.

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. The description mentions the controller argument, but with no schema properties there is little parameter behavior to clarify.

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 names a specific operation (cap planar holes), the target object type (open polysurfaces), and the desired result (closed solids). It is distinct from broader sibling operations like rhino_cap_holes or rhino_close_hole because it explicitly limits the action to planar holes.

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?

It provides clear usage context: apply this to open polysurfaces with planar holes when the goal is creating closed solids. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended scenario is evident from the description.

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