rhino_place_grid

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the source object is preserved, the skip_origin parameter leaves the (0,0) cell untouched, and the return value is new object IDs in row-major order. This adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which correctly indicates mutation.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second paragraph adds critical details about return order and skip_origin. Every sentence is necessary and no extraneous information is present.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, return value format, and a key parameter nuance (skip_origin). It does not explain the coordinate system or how base_point relates to the grid, but the input schema partially covers this. Given the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an array creation tool.

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?

Although the input schema includes descriptions for parameters, the tool description adds value by explaining the row-major return order and the effect of skip_origin. This contextual information helps the agent understand the grid layout and return structure beyond what the schema provides.

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 that the tool replicates a source object in a grid defined by count_x, count_y, and spacing. The verb 'replicate' and resource 'source object' are specific. However, it does not differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like rhino_array_rectangular, which may also array objects in a grid.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_array_rectangular, rhino_array_linear, or rhino_scatter. Users must infer from the tool name and description; no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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