rhino_cmd_volume

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 reveals that the tool operates on selected objects and returns a dict, but it does not disclose whether the operation is non-destructive, what happens with no selection, which units the volume is reported in, or whether it modifies the document. These are meaningful gaps for a calculation tool invoked by an agent.

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 well-structured: the action and target are stated first, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes essential information with no filler or redundancy.

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 a simple zero-parameter analysis tool and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. However, it omits useful contextual details such as required selection state, behavior when nothing is selected, units, and how it differs from the near-duplicate sibling rhino_volume. These gaps prevent full completeness.

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 references a 'controller' argument not present in the schema, which is a minor inconsistency, but with no actual parameters there is little for the description 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 states a specific action ('calculate the volume') and a specific resource type ('selected closed polysurfaces or meshes'), so an agent can understand the core purpose. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool rhino_volume, which appears to serve the same purpose, so it falls short of full clarity.

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 implies when to use it: when the user wants volume of selected closed polysurfaces or meshes. It also implies that the objects must already be selected. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like rhino_volume or rhino_volume_centroid, nor does it state when not to use this tool, leaving routing to inference.

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