rhino_stack_floors

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it's a write operation. The description adds that the source sits at level 0 and copies populate levels 1..floor_count, but does not disclose whether the source is modified, if the operation is destructive, or if it requires specific permissions. Minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Description is two sentences with a line break, front-loaded with the action and constraints. Every sentence provides essential information with no wasted words.

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 tool has 5 parameters and a specific stacking behavior. The description covers the core logic and spatial relationship. It does not mention naming conventions (name_prefix) or return values, but output schema exists and schema covers naming. Given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not reiterate parameter details. However, the description provides valuable context: it clarifies the counting (source at level 0, copies at 1..floor_count) and that spacing is constant. This adds meaning beyond the schema descriptions which already document each parameter.

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?

Description clearly states 'Replicate a source object N times along world +Z with constant spacing' and adds the architectural metaphor 'stack this slab N floors high'. It uses specific verb 'replicate' and resource 'object', and distinguishes from siblings like rhino_array_linear by specifying the world Z direction and constant spacing.

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 implies usage for stacking floors vertically with constant spacing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rhino_array_linear). No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, though the metaphor implies a specific architectural use case.

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