rhino_shadow_project

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool emits/creates shadow polygons and that standalone output is coarse while bridge output is accurate. It does not mention broader side effects such as where the new geometry is placed, whether existing shadows are replaced, or whether input objects are modified.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary operation, and contains no filler. Each sentence contributes distinct information, though the standalone/bridge sentence could be tightened slightly.

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 core operation and output modes, and an output schema exists to explain return values. It is incomplete regarding side effects, usage prerequisites, and the meaning of bridge mode, which are important 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% by the context signal, and the description adds little parameter-level help. It references sun_vector and objects' bounding-box corners in prose, but it does not explain the required object_ids, layer, doc_id, or ground_z parameters well enough to compensate for the missing schema-level descriptions.

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 clearly identifies a specific operation: project bounding-box corners along sun_vector onto the ground plane, producing shadow polygons. It further distinguishes between a coarse standalone result and an accurate bridge-mode result. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 standalone/bridge mode distinction implies when a user might want coarse sketch-grade results versus accurate wireframe shadows. It gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over related sun/shadow tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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