rhino_rebuild_mesh

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. 'Rebuild selected meshes' implies a mutating operation, but it does not state whether the original mesh is replaced, whether a new object is created, what settings are used, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies geometry.

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 core description is concise and front-loaded: 'Rebuild selected meshes to clean up topology.' However, the 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance.' section is boilerplate that adds no agent-facing value and is inconsistent with the empty schema, making the structure less clean.

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?

This is a mesh-modification tool with no annotations and no parameter schema to clarify behavior. The description does not explain what 'selected' means, what topological cleanup entails, what the output is, or how it differs from related mesh-editing tools. Even with an output schema present, the description is too thin for an agent to call this tool confidently.

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 schema has zero properties, so the baseline is 4; the description need not document parameters. It does mention a 'controller' argument in prose, but since that is not part of the input schema and likely an internal detail, it is not harmful enough to lower the score significantly.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Rebuild selected meshes') and states the intent ('clean up topology'), which clearly conveys the action. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like rhino_reduce_mesh or rhino_quad_remesh, so the purpose is clear but not differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_reduce_mesh, rhino_mesh_repair, or rhino_quad_remesh. The phrase 'selected meshes' implies it operates on a current selection, but there is no explanation of prerequisites or selection behavior.

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