rhino_dup_edge

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

No side effects or behavioral expectations are disclosed. The tool name and description imply a read-only operation, but it is not explicitly stated whether the document is modified, whether the returned curves are copies, or if there are any side effects. The lack of annotations places the full burden on the description, which does not address these aspects.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the core function. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the key optionality without unnecessary detail. No wasted words.

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?

The description provides essential context: it names the input (Brep) and the output (edge curves). Since an output schema exists, the description need not detail the return structure. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what this tool does, though it does not elaborate on edge cases or usage 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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (object_id as 'GUID of the Brep' and edge_indices as 'Specific edge indices to extract (None = all edges)'). The tool description adds minimal new information beyond what the schema covers, merely restating the concept of 'all or specific indices'. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Extract edge curves') and the resource ('a Brep'), and mentions the scope ('all or specific indices'). It is specific enough to distinguish from general geometry tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other edge-related tools available in the sibling set (e.g., rhino_dup_border, rhino_show_edges). There is no mention of typical scenarios, limitations, or comparison to alternatives.

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