rhino_report_mesh_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needs to add behavioral detail; it does by listing the report contents and the validity log. It does not discuss error behavior or handling of non-mesh objects, but for a read-only report this is a minor gap.

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 extremely concise and front-loads the subject with a scannable list of checks. It is slightly telegraphic and reads more like a title than a full instruction, but every word contributes useful information.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema and schema-level documentation of object_id/doc_id, the description covers the core domain and does not need to repeat return values. It lacks when-to-use context and edge-case guidance, so it is not fully complete.

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 adds no parameter-level meaning: it never mentions that object_id identifies the mesh to validate or that doc_id defaults to the active document. Context signals report 0% schema description coverage, so the description should have compensated for the schema, but it does not.

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 names a specific report type ('Mesh health') and enumerates the concrete outputs: closed, manifold, vertex/face counts, and validity log. This makes it clear this is a diagnostic read operation, distinct from nearby editing tools, even though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_check_naked_edges, rhino_mesh_repair, or rhino_object_info. The context that it is useful for validating a mesh before repair or export is only implied by the name, not spelled out.

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