rhino_section_at_axis

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

Beyond the annotations (which only include readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses key behavioral constraints: bridge mode extends supported geometry to Breps and meshes, and world-axis slicing is unavailable in standalone mode. This is meaningful behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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: the first sentence states the core operation, and the following sentences add only essential mode constraints. Every sentence earns its place without redundant 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?

The description covers the most important operational constraint (bridge vs. standalone) and input-type differences, while the output schema fills in return-value expectations. It could be slightly more complete by noting the relationship to similar tools, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 value over the schema by explaining the mode-dependent meaning of the 'axis' parameter and clarifying that 'count' controls the number of section curves. It reinforces the object_id semantics already present in the schema, though it does not need to restate every parameter because the schema already documents them.

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 opens with a specific action ('Slice a surface ... into section curves') and identifies the resource types (surface, Brep, mesh in bridge), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes the axis options and mode constraints, which helps separate it from related sectioning tools like rhino_section and rhino_contour.

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 clearly states when standalone mode supports 'u'/'v' axes and that world-axis slicing requires bridge mode, providing essential context for correct usage. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the mode guidance is strong enough to route an agent effectively.

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