rhino_shrink_trimmed_srf

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context on its own. It clearly states the mutation ('shrink the underlying surface') and the return keys ('status' and 'command'), but it does not mention reversibility, failure conditions, or what happens if no trimmed surface is selected. This is adequate for a simple command but not richly transparent.

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 action is stated in the first sentence, followed by the essential precondition and return information. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the operation, the precondition, and the return shape. Nothing else is needed to call it correctly, and the tool's simplicity lowers the contextual burden.

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 input schema has zero properties, so the baseline is 4 because there are no parameters to document. The description mentions a 'controller: RhinoController instance' in Args, which is not reflected in the schema, but with no required parameters this does not create a real invocation burden for the agent.

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 verb and resource: 'Shrink the underlying surface to its trim boundary.' This clearly identifies the tool's unique purpose among many surface and trim-related siblings, and the resource ('underlying surface' of a trimmed surface) helps distinguish it from commands like rhino_trim or rhino_untrim.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Pre-select the trimmed surface before calling.' This tells the agent exactly what state the document must be in, which is essential for a zero-parameter tool. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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