rhino_zebra_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully communicate behavioral traits. 'Display' implies a non-destructive visual operation, but it does not state whether geometry is modified, whether the analysis replaces a previous display, or what 'selected surfaces' means operationally. The generic 'Returns: Dict with command result' adds little transparency.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are cleanly structured and add relevant information without significant verbosity.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description is incomplete for reliable agent use. It does not mention that surfaces must be preselected, does not distinguish the tool from the sibling rhino_zebra, and leaves key behavioral details unspecified. The schema also lacks descriptions, so the tool description must carry more weight than it does.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds useful value by listing 'Horizontal' or 'Vertical' for stripe_direction and identifying stripe_size as the stripe size. However, it lacks units, ranges, or typical values for stripe_size, and it lists a 'controller' argument that is not present in the input schema.

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 and resource: 'Display zebra stripe analysis on selected surfaces.' This is clear and distinguishes the tool as a visual analysis operation. However, it does not differentiate it from the closely named sibling tool 'rhino_zebra', so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_zebra or rhino_curvature_analysis. It also omits the implied prerequisite that surfaces must already be selected before calling the tool.

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