rhino_solar_exposure_estimate

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuine algorithmic context beyond that: it samples the time range, casts rays from the target's centroid, and counts unobstructed lit samples. This discloses that the result is a step-sampled, centroid-based approximation rather than an exact geometric calculation. Nothing contradicts the read-only annotation.

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 a compact two-sentence block with the purpose and output range front-loaded in the first sentence and the method in the second. Every clause adds information — scope, sampling, ray casting, obstruction handling, and return range — with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only estimation tool that already has readOnlyHint and an output schema, the description covers the core essentials: what is computed, how it is computed, and what the returned value means. Minor gaps remain — it does not define what qualifies as a 'bridge' object or how to obtain one, and it does not clarify the defaulted location/timezone assumptions or the behavior when obstruction_object_ids is omitted. These are secondary to successfully invoking the tool.

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% per context signals, so the free-text description must carry the semantic burden for the parameters. It implicitly explains hour_range (samples the time range), step_minutes (at each step), obstruction_object_ids (no obstruction along the ray), and target_object_id (target's centroid), but it never mentions latitude, longitude, timezone_offset_h, or doc_id, nor the defaulted Seoul coordinates and +9 offset. Several parameters end up documented only by their type/range constraints.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource — 'Estimate cumulative solar exposure (lit minutes / total minutes) on an object (bridge only)' — and pins down the output as a 0-1 ratio, which separates it from solar siblings like rhino_sun_position, rhino_direct_irradiance, and rhino_shadow_project. The 'bridge only' scope further narrows applicability. The purpose is unambiguous and self-contained.

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 does not name any alternative tool or state explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions. It conveys an implicit scope exclusion ('bridge only') and the cumulative, time-averaged nature of the computation, which hints it is not for instantaneous irradiance or single-moment shadow queries, but the agent must infer this. No sibling is referenced as a substitute for different analysis needs.

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