rhino_isocurve

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

Annotations are minimal (only title) and provide no behavioral hints. The description does not disclose whether the isocurve is created as a new document object, what the output represents, or any side effects. For a tool that likely creates geometry, this is lacking.

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 with 11 words, which is concise but missing important details about usage and output. It is front-loaded but under-specifies for a non-trivial tool.

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 that an output schema exists (as per context), the description is minimally adequate for a simple extraction tool. However, it lacks information about the nature of the output (e.g., a new curve object) and parameter constraints (e.g., valid range of parameter), limiting its completeness.

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 three of four parameters (object_id, parameter, direction) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so it provides no added value.

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 (Extract), the resource (isocurve), and the context (from a surface at a specific U or V parameter). This is highly specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_evaluate_surface or rhino_surface_curvature_at.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., surface must exist, valid parameter range), and no mention of direction choice implications. The description is purely functional without usage context.

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