rhino_zebra

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact: the tool requires the Rhino bridge to be present. It does not disclose what happens when the bridge is missing or whether the analysis applies to a selected object versus the supplied object_id, but with annotations present this is acceptable.

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 a single sentence and contains no filler. The key prerequisite is included in a parenthetical, though placing it at the end slightly reduces its prominence. Overall, this is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the output schema and read-only annotation, the description still leaves important gaps: it does not explain what object to pass, whether it analyzes an existing selection or the supplied object_id, or how it differs from the near-duplicate sibling `rhino_zebra_analysis`. The bridge requirement is helpful but not sufficient for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The single top-level `args` parameter and the required `object_id` are undocumented in the description, so an agent does not know how to identify the target surface. The phrase 'surface continuity analysis' only weakly implies that a surface object is needed.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Run zebra-stripe surface continuity analysis.' It is immediately understandable and not a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool `rhino_zebra_analysis`, which appears to be the same or closely related operation.

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 only usage hint is the parenthetical 'bridge required,' which is a prerequisite rather than guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No mention is made of how this differs from `rhino_zebra_analysis`, `rhino_curvature_analysis`, or `rhino_curve_continuity`, so the agent receives no routing help.

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