rhino_dup_border

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

Annotations provide only a title ('Duplicate Border') and no read-only or destructive hints, so the description carries the full burden. 'Extract border curves' suggests creation of new curve geometry, but it does not disclose whether the original object is modified, what output is produced, how layers are handled, or what happens with invalid inputs. This is a minimal behavioral statement rather than a transparent one.

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, high-signal sentence with no filler. The core action, resource, and output are all front-loaded, and every word earns its 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?

Despite being a relatively simple tool with an output schema, the description lacks guidance on parameter usage and provides no behavioral context or sibling differentiation. An agent would need to rely on the schema and tool name to determine correct invocation, which is incomplete for a tool with no meaningful annotations.

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 provided context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. It does not help an agent understand how to fill object_id, border_type, or layer. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema field names and schema-level descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and identifies the resource ('a surface or mesh') and the expected result ('border curves'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like rhino_dup_edge or rhino_show_edges, so it stops short of 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 the tool is used when border curves need to be extracted from a surface or mesh, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied, not clarified.

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