rhino_mesh_from_surface

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

readOnlyHint=false is present and consistent with a mesh-creation operation, so there is no contradiction. The description adds little beyond the annotation: it does not disclose side effects (whether a new mesh object is created while the source surface is preserved), the meaning or origin of the 'bridge only' constraint, or any failure modes when given a non-bridge surface.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the main action ('Mesh a surface'), with zero wasted words. However, the brevity borders on under-specification: the ambiguous parenthetical '(bridge only)' costs the reader more effort to interpret than it saves in length, and no structuring helps an agent parse the constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but critical context is missing. The central ambiguity — what 'bridge only' means and how it restricts valid inputs — is unaddressed, and no distinction is drawn from the closely related rhino_mesh_from_brep tool. An agent cannot reliably determine when to invoke this tool from this description alone.

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 effectively 0% for the description's purposes, and the description says nothing about any parameter — object_id, quality, name, layer, or doc_id. The schema itself documents quality ('0..1 (1 = finest)') and doc_id, but object_id is the required parameter and receives no explanatory text in either the schema or the description.

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 clear verb and resource ('Mesh a surface'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, the qualifier '(bridge only)' is unexplained — there is no definition of what a 'bridge' surface is — and it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like rhino_mesh_from_brep or rhino_mesh_from_nurbs, which perform similar meshing operations.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description gives no indication of when to choose this tool over rhino_mesh_from_brep, rhino_mesh_from_nurbs, or rhino_quad_remesh, and no exclusions or alternatives are named. The '(bridge only)' constraint implies a usage restriction but provides no way for an agent to determine whether a given surface qualifies.

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