rhino_interpolate_curve

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

The description only states 'Add an interpolated NURBS curve' which aligns with the readOnlyHint=false annotation, but adds no further behavioral context (e.g., degree range, effect of collinear points, handling of invalid input). Annotations already indicate mutation, so the description offers little extra value.

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 of 12 words, which is very concise and to the point. However, extreme brevity at the cost of more informative content prevents a higher score.

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 tool has multiple optional parameters (degree, name, layer) and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the default degree, output format, or usage context among many sibling tools. Even with an output schema, more context would be helpful for effective tool invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the tool description adds no information about parameters like points, degree, name, etc. Although the schema itself has some property descriptions, the tool description does not compensate for the missing coverage, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema.

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), the object (interpolated NURBS curve), and how it works (passing through given points). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rhino_nurbs_curve which creates a NURBS curve from control points rather than interpolating through points.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_nurbs_curve or other curve creation tools. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites (e.g., minimum 2 points).

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