rhino_show_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'highlight edges' without describing side effects (e.g., whether it modifies selection, whether highlights persist, whether it is reversible, or if it requires specific display modes). The mention of a 'controller' argument hints at internal state but no behavioral details are given.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, then lists valid modes and arguments. The structure is clear with Args and Returns sections. No fluff or redundancy, though the Args section is slightly misleading because it includes a controller parameter not present in the schema.

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 is adequate for a simple display tool but leaves gaps: it references a 'controller' argument not in the input schema, which could confuse an agent. It also does not explain how to clear the highlights or whether the tool operates on currently selected objects (assumed but not explicit). The output schema exists, so return details are not required, but the overall completeness is moderate.

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 provides no description for the 'mode' parameter (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It lists valid modes ('Naked, Non-manifold, All') and explains that mode is the edge type to display. This adds meaningful semantic information beyond the raw schema, though it does not explain the meaning of each mode.

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 states the tool highlights edges of selected surfaces by type, and lists valid modes (Naked, Non-manifold, All). This is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools like rhino_display_show_edges or rhino_check_naked_edges, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 implies usage (when you need to highlight edge types on selected surfaces) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_check_naked_edges or rhino_display_show_edges. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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