rhino_check_naked_edges

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it forwards to Rhino.Geometry.Brep.GetNakedEdges, returns structured edge data, and only works in bridge mode. It does not cover error cases, but the annotation plus implementation reference provides solid transparency.

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: the first sentence states the core action, and the follow-up provides necessary mode and return-format context. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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, the description is complete: it states the input type (Brep), the mode restriction (bridge only), the underlying API call, and the return shape. Annotations and the output schema cover safety and detailed return values, so nothing essential is missing.

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 low, but the description compensates somewhat by stating the target is a Brep, implying object_id must reference one. It does not add detail about doc_id or the meaning of edge_index/gap_count, though the output schema likely covers the latter and the schema itself has basic field descriptions.

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: 'Enumerate naked edges of a Brep with their lengths'. It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from broad validation or display tools by specifying the data-oriented output and the bridge-only mode.

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 explicitly scopes usage to bridge mode and explains that standalone rhino3dm cannot enumerate naked edges, which is a clear when/when-not signal. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the mode restriction and specific purpose give sufficient context for selection.

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