rhino_panel_planarity

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the non-mutating nature, and the description adds meaningful behavior: the exact planarity error definition, tolerance-based flagging, and the returned stats block. It does not describe all edge-case behavior, but it goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 at three sentences, front-loads the purpose, and avoids filler. Each sentence contributes either the metric definition, the flagging rule, or the output summary.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the operation is read-only, the description covers the core inputs, algorithm, threshold behavior, and summary output. It does not need to re-explain return values; it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 description clarifies the meaning of the grid and tolerance by describing the UxV sampling and error threshold, but it never names count_u, count_v, surface_id, or doc_id. Since schema coverage is low, the description partially compensates for the parameter semantics but leaves explicit mapping to the agent.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: a per-panel planarity report on a UxV grid sampled from a surface. It clearly explains what the tool computes, but it does not contrast itself with closely related analysis tools such as rhino_panel_curvature_classify or rhino_surface_developable_score.

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 implies the intended use (assessing panel planarity and producing a high-level stats summary), but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no explicit exclusions or sibling references.

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