rhino_uv_grid_panels

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by clearly disclosing side effects: 'output='mesh'' writes a quad mesh to the doc, 'curves' writes iso-curves, and 'corners' returns points without writing geometry. This is valuable behavioral context that readOnlyHint=false alone does not convey.

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: a one-sentence summary followed by clearly formatted explanations of the three output modes. Every sentence earns its place, and code formatting makes the options easily scannable.

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 tool with three distinct output behaviors, the description covers what geometry is produced, whether each mode writes to the document, and the exact sample-point count for the corners mode. Return-value details are presumably handled by the output schema, and layer/doc_id behavior is documented in the schema, leaving only minor gaps around usage context.

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 already documents surface_id, count_u/count_v bounds, output choices, layer, and doc_id defaults, so the description adds little parameter-level detail. Its mention of count_u+count_v and sample-point counts reinforces the schema but does not meaningfully extend it.

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 names a specific operation ('Sample a surface on a regular UxV grid') and a clear output concept ('panels'), and the description then enumerates three concrete output modes. It is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like rhino_panelize_surface or rhino_create_uv_grid.

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 makes the tool's behavior clear enough that an agent can infer it is for generating UV-grid panel geometry from a surface. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over related alternatives such as rhino_mesh_from_surface, rhino_panelize_surface, or rhino_create_uv_grid, and it offers no exclusions.

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