rhino_match_srf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the selected edge is adjusted and that the return is a dict with 'status' and 'command' keys. However, it does not explicitly state whether the source/target geometry is modified, whether the operation is destructive, or what side effects occur.

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 front-loaded with its purpose and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. The 'controller' line is extraneous and inconsistent with the schema, and the mapping between G0/G1/G2 and the continuity values is left implicit, reducing the clarity of the structure.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the core operation and return shape are covered. But the description omits how the second/target edge is specified—it only mentions pre-selecting 'the edge to adjust'—and it never explains the relationship between G0/G1/G2 and Position/Tangency/Curvature. These are material gaps for correctly invoking the tool.

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 only defines 'continuity' as a string with default 'Tangency', and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It usefully enumerates the allowed values: 'Position', 'Tangency', or 'Curvature'. However, it also lists 'controller' as an argument that is not present in the input schema, which could mislead an agent into passing an invalid parameter.

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 states a specific operation: matching the edge of one surface to another for G0/G1/G2 continuity. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from generic surface creation or editing tools.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite: 'Pre-select the edge to adjust before calling.' However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives like rhino_match_surface or rhino_blend_surface_edges, nor does it mention how the target edge is selected.

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