rhino_draft_angle_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'displays' an analysis, but does not explain whether it is non-destructive, whether it requires preselected geometry, whether it modifies the model, or what the user should expect visually. The return type is mentioned but without meaningful behavioral context.

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 short and front-loads the core action, which is good. But it wastes a line on an undocumented 'controller' argument and uses boilerplate Args/Returns formatting that adds little for an AI agent selecting the tool.

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 an analysis tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not state the prerequisite that surfaces must be selected, how the draft-angle value influences the analysis, or what the resulting command result means. The presence of sibling analysis tools like rhino_draft_angle and rhino_curvature_analysis makes this lack of context more significant.

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 description gives meaning to draft_angle as 'Reference draft angle in degrees,' which adds value beyond the bare schema field. However, it also lists a 'controller' argument that does not appear in the input schema, creating ambiguity. With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify all expected inputs, but it only partially does so.

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 and resource: 'Display draft-angle analysis on selected surfaces.' This is clear enough to identify the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling tool rhino_draft_angle, so an agent may struggle to choose between them.

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 that the tool operates on 'selected surfaces' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_draft_angle or rhino_curvature_analysis. It neither states prerequisites, such as selecting surfaces first, nor mentions when this tool should be preferred over others.

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