rhino_get_control_points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate that. It adds the detail that both control points and weights are returned, which is beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe output format, potential errors, or data structure.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded with key information.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema (as indicated), the description is complete. It names the data returned and the target object, which is sufficient.

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 for 'object_id' is 'GUID of the NURBS curve or surface.', which already explains the parameter. The description provides no additional parameter information, so baseline 3 applies (schema coverage is effectively 100% for the required parameter).

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 verb 'Get', resource 'control points (and weights)', and target 'NURBS curve or surface'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'set_control_points', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., 'curve_point_at' for a single point, or 'set_control_points' for modification). Lacks context about prerequisites or excluded scenarios.

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