rhino_scatter

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral details: boundary interpreted in XY, Z taken from boundary_min.z, optional rotation jitter about world Z, and deterministic seed usage. However, it omits details on object type constraints, whether source is modified or copied, and error handling.

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 extremely concise — just three lines with no superfluous information. It front-loads the core action and efficiently conveys key points.

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's complexity (6 parameters) and availability of an output schema (not shown), the description is insufficient. It misses critical details like source_object_id, doc_id, and conflicts with the schema on boundary_min's Z behavior. The context among siblings (various array/scatter tools) is not leveraged to clarify differentiation.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining Z is taken from boundary_min.z and rotation jitter is about world Z. However, it contradicts the schema description for boundary_min (which states 'Z is preserved from the source'), creating confusion. It also does not cover all parameters (e.g., doc_id, source_object_id). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it falls short and introduces inconsistency.

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 it scatters copies inside a 2-D AABB with optional Z-rotation jitter. The verb 'scatter' and the specification of the boundary as an AABB distinguish it from array tools that create regular patterns. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling array tools like rhino_array_linear.

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. The description implies usage for random placement within a rectangle, but does not mention exclusions or provide context for choosing it over other scatter or array tools.

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