rhino_thickness_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does indicate this is a display action, works on closed polysurfaces, and uses max_thickness for the color scale. But it does not clarify behavior when nothing is selected, whether the analysis creates a persistent object, or what happens for open polysurfaces.

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 front-loaded with a crisp purpose sentence and the Args/Returns structure is tight. The controller line is arguably unnecessary and inconsistent with the schema, but the overall description is compact and readable.

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 one-parameter analysis tool, the description covers the operation, the required object type/selection state, the parameter's meaning, and the return type. It is less complete around failure cases and units, but the output schema reduces the need to document return values further.

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 description adds useful meaning to max_thickness by explaining it controls the color scale maximum, which the bare schema lacks. However, it also documents a 'controller' argument that is not present in the input schema, creating potential confusion about what should actually be passed when invoking the tool.

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 states a specific action ('Display a thickness analysis') on a specific resource/scope ('selected closed polysurfaces'). Among the many sibling analysis tools, this clearly identifies what makes this tool distinct: thickness analysis on closed polysurfaces.

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 when to use the tool ('selected closed polysurfaces') and conveys the precondition that objects must be selected. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as curvature, draft angle, or zebra analysis, nor does it say when not to use it.

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