rhino_section

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

The description states the action but does not disclose whether original objects are modified, whether new section curves are created on a layer, or what side effects occur. The 'bridge required' note adds a small environmental constraint, but annotations already indicate this is not read-only, so the description adds little behavioral context.

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: one sentence, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. It earns its place, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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 operation's medium complexity and absence of parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits behavior regarding original objects, output placement, prerequisites, and how the plane should be defined. The output schema covers return shape, but not the operational context an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries heavy responsibility for explaining parameters. It only connects 'listed objects' to object_ids and 'plane' to the plane parameters; it does not explain plane_origin/plane_normal semantics or the doc_id parameter. The nested Point3dModel schema helps, but the main parameters remain under-described.

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 ('Slice') and identifies the target resource ('the listed objects') and mechanism ('with a plane'), so an agent can understand the core operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from close siblings like rhino_cmd_section or rhino_drawing_section_cut.

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 phrase 'bridge required' gives a prerequisite but no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of applicable object types, when a section is preferable to a contour/drawing section, or any exclusions.

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