rhino_surface_closest_point

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating the two outputs: UV parameters and a 3D point. It does not overpromise or contradict the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only query with one required argument and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what happens if the test point does not project onto the surface or clarify surface type, but these are minor for this simple operation.

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 reported as 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining that object_id is a GUID or how test_point coordinates should be supplied. It only mentions 'test point' generically, leaving the parameter semantics under-specified from the description's perspective.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('surface') and a precise deliverable ('UV parameters and 3D point'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from surface creation or editing tools and from evaluation tools like rhino_evaluate_surface or rhino_surface_normal_at.

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 usage scenario is implied: use this when you need the closest point on a surface to a given test point. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as rhino_evaluate_surface or rhino_surface_normal_at, so the guidance is thin.

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