rhino_panel_curvature_classify

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond it: standalone mode uses a 4-corner normal heuristic without full Gaussian K, while bridge mode reports true Gaussian and mean curvature. This caveat is especially valuable because it warns the agent not to over-trust standalone results.

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 compact and information-dense: purpose, class taxonomy, and mode-specific behavior are all covered in a few lines. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile, an output schema exists, and the description covers purpose, classification categories, and the key algorithmic difference between modes. The only notable gap is that it does not explain what activates bridge mode, but this is minor for a read-only classifier with a structured input schema.

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?

Given the context signal of 0% schema description coverage, the tool description was expected to compensate for parameter semantics, but it does not mention count_u, count_v, planar_tolerance, single_curve_tolerance, or surface_id. Some schema fields have built-in descriptions and names are partially self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no parameter-level guidance.

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 action ('classify'), a target ('each UxV panel'), and the expected output classes (planar / single_* / synclastic / anticlastic). It is clear and distinguishable in intent from generic curvature tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.

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 explains standalone vs bridge mode behavior, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as rhino_panel_planarity, rhino_curvature_analysis, or rhino_surface_curvature_at. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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