rhino_network_srf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful precondition (pre-selection) and specifies the return shape ('status' and 'command' keys), but it does not explain side effects, failure behavior, or what 'command' means operationally.

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 short and front-loaded: the purpose, the required pre-selection, and the return contract are each stated in one concise line. There is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation requirement and return shape. However, it leaves ambiguity about how the returned 'command' relates to execution, and it does not help an agent choose between this and similar surface creation tools like rhino_network_surface or rhino_edge_srf.

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 input schema has zero properties, and the rubric assigns a baseline of 4 in that case. The description still adds value by mentioning the controller parameter and its type, even though that parameter is not reflected in the schema.

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 ('Build') and resource ('surface through a network of intersecting curves'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool rhino_network_surface, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 clearly states the key precondition: 'Pre-select the network curves before calling.' This provides actionable context for when and how to invoke the tool, though it does not discuss alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it.

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