rhino_execute_python

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits: changes are wrapped in an undo record and reverted on failure, code must use print() for output, and handle None returns. This goes beyond the minimal annotations (only title).

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-organized with critical warnings at the top, bullet points for requirements, and a clear return value summary. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: code requirements, error handling, undo behavior, and return fields. It is comprehensive for a code execution tool.

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 input schema already describes both parameters adequately. The description adds context about code content requirements (e.g., import rs) but does not directly explain the verified_functions parameter. With high schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 it executes RhinoScript Python code in a live Rhino session. It distinguishes itself from siblings like rhino_execute_csharp by specifying the language and import requirements.

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 explicit step-by-step usage guidelines, including calling rhino_get_rhinoscript_docs for correct signatures, and details on error handling and undo behavior. It clearly advises when and how to use the tool.

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