rhino_contour

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so no contradiction exists. The description adds that the tool generates equally spaced curves and has a bridge dependency, but it doesn't explain whether new objects are created in the document, how the bridge requirement affects invocation, or any side effects beyond generation.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The 'bridge required' parenthetical is cryptic but compact; overall this is concise, though under-specified.

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?

Given five required parameters, zero usable schema descriptions for the core arguments, and a nontrivial bridge prerequisite, this description is far from complete. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct call without additional external knowledge about section-curve generation and the bridge requirement.

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 of the core parameters is effectively 0%, and the description does not mention object_ids, base_point, direction, or interval. 'Equally spaced' loosely implies interval semantics, but the crucial meaning of direction and base_point for section generation is left entirely to the agent.

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 states the action ('Generate') and the output ('equally spaced section curves'), so an agent knows what the tool produces. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like rhino_cmd_contour or rhino_section, and the parenthetical 'bridge required' is cryptic.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over rhino_contour alternatives such as rhino_section, rhino_cmd_contour, or rhino_section_at_axis. The phrase 'bridge required' hints at a prerequisite but does not explain what bridge is or why it is required.

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