rhino_extrude

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming it's a write operation. However, the description does not explain what is created (surface, solid, brep), what the return value is, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with no rich 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?

One concise sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the key action and parameters. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to mention return values, the effect of optional parameters like 'capped', 'name', or 'layer', and does not address the complexity of the tool. A more complete description would include what the tool produces and its behavior with default settings.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It ties the parameters 'distance' and 'direction' to the operation, adding meaning beyond the schema that only lists them as required. However, it omits details like units for distance or coordinate system for direction.

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 (linearly extrude), the resource (profile curve), and the key parameters (distance and direction). It distinguishes from sibling tools like revolve or sweep by specifying 'linear' extrusion.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., revolved or swept extrusions). Usage context is implied but not stated; prerequisites like curve must be planar or closed are missing.

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