rhino_evaluate_surface

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a non-mutating evaluation operation. It adds that the result includes point, normal, and tangents, but it does not disclose domain assumptions, coordinate reference, or error behavior; the read-only safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no filler. Every word contributes either to the operation or the expected outputs.

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 read-only query with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description conveys the core operation and outputs. It lacks explicit object_id semantics and UV-domain guidance, so an agent could call it with out-of-domain parameters without clear warning.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names u/v as UV parameters and implies object_id selects the surface, but it does not specify valid parameter ranges, surface domain, or how the tangents are derived, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 verb ('Evaluate'), resource ('surface'), and location ('UV parameters'), and enumerates the outputs ('3D point, normal, and tangents'). This differentiates it from sibling surface-analysis tools like rhino_surface_normal_at or rhino_surface_curvature_at.

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 use case: an agent should call this when it needs surface evaluation data at given UV coordinates. However, it gives no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred over similar surface-query siblings.

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