extract_geometry

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies the file, permission requirements, or that it returns a 'readable format' without specifics on structure.

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 well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections, and it is appropriately sized. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure aids readability.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't detail the return format, potential errors, or prerequisites, leaving ambiguity for an AI agent.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description provides meaningful parameter descriptions for both file_path and object_index in the Args section, clarifying the file type (.3dm) and the purpose of the index.

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 the tool extracts geometric data from an existing object, with specific parameter details for file path and object index. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like list_objects or analyze_rhino_file, which could have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_objects or analyze_rhino_file. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or context for selection.

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