rhino_split

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

With no annotations, the description is expected to disclose side effects and behavior. It only mentions 'interactive', which implies user prompts, but does not describe whether objects are modified destructively, if it works on copies, or what happens to the cutting objects. Transparency is minimal.

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 extremely concise and quickly readable, with no filler. It loses a point because it omits necessary behavioral details, but structurally it is efficient.

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 lacks information about the return value (even though the tool says it returns a Dict), side effects, or any caveats. Given the simplicity of the tool, more context about the interactive flow and expected outcome would be needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 single parameter 'controller' is mentioned without any explanation of its role or how it should be used. Since the parameter type is likely standard (RhinoController), the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 action (split) and the objects involved (selected objects with cutting objects), and the 'interactive' qualifier hints at its distinct mode. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from other split/boolean tools, 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?

Only the word 'interactive' gives a hint about when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative commands like rhino_boolean_split or rhino_trim. The description lacks practical usage context.

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