rhino_array_linear

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, implying mutation, but description adds no further behavioral context. For a creation tool, it doesn't mention whether original objects are retained, what new objects are created, or any side effects. This is a significant gap beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but brevity sacrifices important details. Every word earns its place, but more information could be added without losing conciseness.

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?

Output schema exists but description does not explain return values or what the tool produces. For a creation tool, missing details about created object IDs or document changes leaves the agent uncertain about tool outcomes.

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-specific semantics. Parameters like direction, spacing, and count lack explanation of units, coordinate system, or constraints. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Array objects along a vector with constant spacing', specifying the verb (array), resource (objects), and key parameters (vector, constant spacing). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rhino_array_polar and rhino_array_rectangular by implying linear arrangement.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rhino_array_polar, rhino_array_rectangular). The description does not provide context for selection, leaving the agent without criteria to choose the appropriate array tool.

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