rhino_point_deviation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose important traits: the need for preselected objects and interactive execution. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the document, or what side effects the interactive session may have.

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: purpose first, then prerequisites, then args/returns. It contains no filler, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' lines are generic boilerplate that add limited value.

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 operational context: what the tool analyzes, the need for preselected objects, and its interactive nature. It does not explain tolerance settings or output metrics, but the empty input schema and presence of an output schema reduce the burden on the description.

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, so there are no parameters requiring documentation; the zero-parameter baseline is 4. The 'Args: controller' line appears to reference a framework-injected controller rather than an agent-supplied parameter, so it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Analyse the deviation between point clouds and a reference surface.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and makes it distinguishable from sibling analysis tools. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives explicit preconditions: 'Objects must be selected before calling' and notes that 'the command runs interactively.' This provides useful when-to-call context, but it does not discuss when to choose this tool over alternative analysis tools or 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.