rhino_cylinder

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is a write operation. The description adds a behavioral note about the axis constraint in standalone mode. However, it does not disclose other important traits such as whether existing geometry is modified, if the operation is undoable, or any prerequisites. The description carries the burden since annotations only cover read-only hint.

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, concise and to the point. It wastes no words, but its brevity may omit useful information. It could be slightly expanded to improve clarity without becoming verbose.

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 objects, multiple parameters) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not mention the output, document requirements, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description still lacks completeness for an AI to use effectively.

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 the schema having descriptions for parameters like axis, base_center, and height, the context signal indicates 0% schema description coverage, meaning the tool description does not add parameter information. The description only mentions the axis constraint but does not explain other required parameters like radius and height. For a tool with many parameters, the description should compensate.

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 cylinder') and the resource. It goes beyond the name by specifying a constraint for standalone mode, which helps differentiate from other primitive shapes like sphere or box. However, it could be more explicit about what makes a cylinder unique among sibling tools.

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 provides minimal usage guidance: it mentions that in standalone mode the axis must be world Z. This is helpful but does not specify when to use this tool instead of alternatives like rhino_cone or rhino_box. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are given.

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