rhino_draft_angle

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a non-destructive operation, and the description's 'Compute' aligns with that. The additional 'bridge required' is ambiguous and does not clearly disclose behavioral constraints or side effects beyond what annotations already cover.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the core function. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, though it omits any detail about parameters or output, which slightly reduces structural completeness.

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 analysis tool, the description covers the basic purpose but fails to mention the return value, required object selection, or how the output is presented. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 contains parameters (doc_id, object_id) but the description provides no explanation of them. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds no value in understanding what inputs are expected or how they affect the computation.

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 tool computes draft angles relative to the world Z axis, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling tool rhino_draft_angle_analysis, so it falls short of a perfect 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_draft_angle_analysis. The note 'bridge required' is a prerequisite but not a usage guideline, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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