rhino_box

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds the clarification that the box is axis-aligned and standalone. However, it does not disclose that the tool creates a solid Brep, permissions required, or side effects. The output schema exists but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, making it very concise. However, it is almost too brief, sacrificing clarity for brevity. Every word serves a purpose but omits important details.

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 complexity of the input schema (nested Point3d, multiple parameters) and many sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention that sizes must be positive, that corner is lower-left-front, or that the tool creates a solid. The output schema provides some return info, but the description lacks essential context for effective use.

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 description adds no meaning to parameters like corner, size_x/y/z, or doc_id. With 0% schema description coverage on the main schema, the description should compensate but fails to do so. The schema itself provides some descriptions (e.g., corner), but the tool description is silent on parameter semantics.

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 action 'Add a rectangular box' and specifies it is 'axis-aligned in standalone mode', which differentiates it from rotated boxes or mesh boxes like rhino_mesh_box. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from other solid primitives (sphere, cylinder) in the sibling list.

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. The phrase 'standalone mode' implies a constraint but does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., for axis-aligned boxes only) or mention alternative tools like rhino_mesh_box for mesh boxes.

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