rhino_volume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral constraints — requiring a closed mesh and stating that Brep volume requires a bridge — which are the operational limits an agent needs to know.

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?

One tightly packed sentence of 14 words. The core action is front-loaded, the input constraint follows immediately, and the Brep caveat is appended last. No wasted words.

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 measurement tool with a read-only annotation and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, the 'bridge' reference is unexplained, behavior on open meshes is unstated, and the overlap with rhino_cmd_volume is not resolved.

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 coverage is reported as 0%, so the description carries the burden. It adds the key semantic that object_id must reference a closed mesh, but it doesn't explain doc_id or otherwise clarify the parameters; doc_id's schema description partially compensates.

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 verb and resource — 'Compute the volume of a closed mesh' — and adds the closure constraint plus the Brep caveat. However, it doesn't differentiate from closely related siblings such as rhino_cmd_volume or rhino_volume_centroid.

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 usage context: use it for closed meshes, and not for Breps unless a 'bridge' is available. This is a partial when-not exclusion, but no alternative tool is named and the bridge mechanism is left vague.

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