rhino_check_bad_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Check', 'inspect', and 'report' imply a read-only operation, and the description explains that it reports valid/solid versus issues. However, it does not explicitly state that objects are not modified or describe behavior when nothing is selected.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a clear first sentence. The second sentence largely repeats the first and adds low-value implementation detail ('Uses rhinoscriptsyntax'), and the Args/Returns boilerplate is mostly redundant for a zero-parameter tool.

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 no-parameter check tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context: it requires selected objects and reports validity/solid status. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar validation siblings like rhino_validate_brep, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 user-facing parameters need little explanation. However, the description lists 'controller: RhinoController instance' as an argument even though the schema does not expose it, creating a minor mismatch between the documented and actual callable parameters.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Check selected objects for validity and report solid status.' This clearly distinguishes it from selection tools like rhino_sel_bad_objects and creation/modification tools in the sibling list.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when selected objects need a validity or solid-status check. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases such as 'use rhino_validate_brep for a single brep,' so it stops short of a 5.

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