rhino_display_show_edges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a display-level operation affecting surface/mesh edges, implying it is non-destructive to geometry. However, it does not state the scope of the effect (selected objects vs. entire document), whether it persists, or the response shape, and 'toggle' is slightly inconsistent with the boolean parameter that appears to set rather than flip state.

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 appropriately sized: one leading sentence states the behavior, followed by a single parameter line. There is no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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-boolean tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is that it does not explain the scope of the edge display change or how this relates to sibling edge/display tools. An agent invoking it directly would likely succeed, but it would have to guess about selection or viewport context.

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 no description for the show property, but the description compensates by explicitly stating 'show: True to show edges, False to hide.' This gives the agent precise semantics for the only parameter. It does not go beyond the obvious boolean mapping, but for a single parameter that is sufficient.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Toggle display of surface/mesh edges.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from most sibling geometry/creation/analysis tools. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the similarly named sibling rhino_show_edges, so it stops short of a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_show_edges, rhino_show_dir, or rhino_subd_display_toggle. The description gives no context about selection requirements, current viewport behavior, or when this display toggle is appropriate.

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