rhino_probe_intersection

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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already present, the description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: hits are sorted by distance from the ray origin, and the tool only targets Breps/Extrusions. This gives the agent a clearer model of the operation without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the action, followed by the key result-ordering behavior and a brief implementation note. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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 read-only probe with an output schema and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description covers the essential mechanics: ray casting, target geometry, and sorted results. It leaves filtering and cap details to the schema, which is acceptable given the available structured metadata.

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 only obliquely references `ray_origin` and the default target set (`Breps/Extrusions`). It does not explain `doc_id`, `max_hits`, `object_ids`, or the behavior of `ray_direction`, and with schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the parameter documentation gap.

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: cast a ray and report intersection points against Breps/Extrusions. This makes the tool's core function unmistakable and distinguishes it from the many creation/modification tools in the sibling list, though it does not explicitly name an alternative probe 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as surface closest-point, section, or contour probing. The 'Bridge-only' note explains an implementation limitation but does not help an agent choose between this tool and other geometric query tools.

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