rhino_curvature_analysis

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds a useful dependency ('bridge required') plus the sampled quantities. It does not describe how sampling is performed or what the result represents, though the output schema helps fill that gap.

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?

A single compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both the operation and the important bridge requirement earn their place.

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 one-object read-only analysis with an output schema, the description plus annotations and schema cover invocation adequately. It would be more complete with an explicit pointer to sibling tools, but nothing critical is missing for calling it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'of a surface' clarifies that object_id should identify the surface to analyze, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Object Id'; however, it does not explicitly map parameters or mention doc_id.

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?

States a specific action ('Sample') and resource ('Gaussian/mean curvature of a surface'), so an agent knows what it does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like rhino_surface_curvature_at or rhino_curvature_graph, so it misses the top score.

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 Gaussian/mean curvature sampling is needed) and gives a key prerequisite ('bridge required'), but it does not name alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer the decision boundary versus similar curvature-analysis tools.

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