rhino_panel_frames

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true indicates the tool should not modify the document, but the description 'Generate oriented frames' implies creation of new geometry, which is a potential contradiction. The description does not clarify whether it creates objects or returns data.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient and easy to parse. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity, providing only a high-level purpose without structure or elaboration.

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?

The description lacks essential context: it does not explain what the output is (e.g., planes as geometry or data), whether it modifies the model, what inputs are needed, or how it relates to other panel tools. This makes it incomplete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 parameters (object_id, u_count, v_count, offset) but none are described, and the description makes no mention of them. Schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the agent without any understanding of required inputs.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Generate oriented frames (planes)') and its purpose ('at panel centres for construction'). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic modeling tools, though it could more explicitly reference the input surface.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like rhino_panel_planarity or rhino_panel_curvature_classify. No alternative tools are mentioned, and no usage conditions are given.

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