rhino_helix

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds only the verb 'Add' without clarifying whether it creates a new object or modifies an existing one. No information about side effects, authorization needs, or return value beyond the vague phrase 'sampled into a NURBS curve'.

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 one sentence, but it is under-specified and does not earn its place. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness; here it sacrifices clarity.

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 no output schema visible and a 0% schema coverage context, the description should clarify output type and usage context relative to siblings. It fails to do so, leaving the tool functionally incomplete for an AI agent.

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 schema properties having descriptions, the context signals 'Schema description coverage: 0%', suggesting the descriptions are either missing or not counted. The single-sentence description adds no meaning to any parameter, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema for 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 'Add a helix sampled into a NURBS curve' clearly states the verb (Add) and object (helix), and implies the output is a NURBS curve. It distinguishes from siblings like rhino_spiral, but the phrase 'sampled into' is slightly ambiguous about whether it creates a new curve or samples an existing one.

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 versus alternatives like rhino_spiral or other curve creation tools. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the description alone.

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