rhino_cmd_curvature_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the operation displays curvature analysis on selected surfaces and returns a dict, which conveys that this is a display/analysis action rather than a geometry mutation. However, it does not clarify whether the analysis persists in the viewport, whether prior analysis is replaced, or what happens if no surface 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 description is compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clear structure that lists valid styles and arguments. Minor redundancy exists in restating that style is the analysis type, but overall every section adds useful information.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and the output schema is stated to exist, so the bar is relatively low. However, the description omits any mention of the near-duplicate sibling rhino_curvature_analysis, failing to explain how these tools differ. It also lacks details about selection requirements or failure behavior, leaving an agent without enough context to reliably choose between closely related analysis tools.

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 schema only defines a 'style' parameter with no enum or description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by naming the valid style values and stating that style selects the type of curvature analysis. It also mentions a controller argument even though that parameter is not present in the schema, which is slightly confusing but does not obscure the main parameter's meaning.

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 identifies the operation as displaying curvature analysis on selected surfaces and lists the valid analysis styles. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling tool rhino_curvature_analysis or from related analysis commands.

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 says the tool operates on selected surfaces and enumerates valid styles, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as rhino_curvature_analysis, rhino_curvature_graph, or rhino_zebra_analysis. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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