rhino_taper

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

Annotations provide only a title; no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, if it modifies objects in place, or any permissions needed. The 'make_copy' parameter suggests optionality, but this is not explained.

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 concise sentence with no superfluous words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) that could improve readability, but it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity of the input schema (with nested objects and multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns, how axes are expected, or any important constraints (e.g., object types that work with this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%: the parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal (e.g., 'Taper axis start.'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names, and it does not clarify the role of each parameter, such as how axis direction affects the taper.

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 (taper), the resource (objects along an axis), and the key parameters (start/end radii). This distinguishes it from other transformation tools like rhino_bend or rhino_twist.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when not to, nor does it mention alternatives. The usage is implied by the name and description, but no guidance is provided for context or exclusions.

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