rhino_curve_continuity

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is disclosed. The description adds the exact metrics computed and the existence of a validity log, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not disclose behavior for non-curve objects or error handling, but the lowered bar with annotations present makes this acceptable. No contradiction with annotations.

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 telegraphic sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Curve sanity') and then delivers a scannable list of report contents. Every token earns its place; there is zero 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?

With an output schema documenting the report shape, a simple object-reference input, and a read-only annotation, an agent can invoke this tool correctly from the definition. The gaps are the absence of usage guidance and the only-implicit constraint that object_id must reference a curve rather than any object.

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 nested _ObjectIn schema documents both functional parameters: doc_id ('Document handle id; active targets the current document') and object_id ('Object to validate'). The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond implying object_id should reference a curve via 'Curve sanity'.

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 identifies the resource (curve) and enumerates the specific checks ('span count, closed flag, planarity, periodic, validity log'), which distinguishes it from siblings like rhino_curve_length and rhino_curve_point_at. However, no explicit verb is present — 'Curve sanity' implies a report/validation action but never states it.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description never names alternatives (e.g., rhino_object_info, rhino_validate_brep, rhino_check_bad_objects) or states conditions for choosing this diagnostic over them. Its role as a pre-modeling sanity check is only implied, never recommended.

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