rhino_arc

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with 'Add'. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond creation—no mention of side effects, prerequisites (e.g., active document), or confirmations. For a write tool with minimal annotation coverage, more transparency is needed.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and input requirements.

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 simple function and the presence of a well-described input schema and an output schema (not shown), the description is nearly complete. It could mention that it returns a new arc object, but the output schema likely covers that. Minor gap, but overall adequate.

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 tool description does not add parameter details; it relies on the input schema which already has descriptions for all parameters (center, radius, angle_degrees, etc.). Schema description coverage is high (0% from tool description, but schema itself covers 100%), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Add', the resource 'arc', and the method of definition: 'by centre, radius, and sweep angle (in degrees)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like rhino_circle (no sweep angle) and rhino_ellipse (different parameters).

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 for creating arcs with the given parameters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like rhino_circle, rhino_helix, or other curve tools. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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