rhino_twist

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Twist objects' but does not mention whether original objects are modified or if a copy is made (despite the make_copy parameter). The description lacks details on destructive nature, permissions, or side effects.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It contains no unnecessary words and is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 (multiple required parameters, optional make_copy, output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the axis definition via two points, object selection, or the effect of make_copy. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of behavioral context.

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%, so the description should explain parameters. It hints at angle and axis but does not clarify that object_ids, axis_start, and axis_end are required, nor does it mention the optional make_copy parameter. The schema itself has some descriptions, but the overall description fails to compensate.

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 'Twist objects around an axis by a specified angle' clearly states the action and resource. It provides a specific verb and mentions key parameters (angle, axis). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like rhino_rotate or rhino_bend, so it misses the highest mark.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_rotate or rhino_helix. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions is provided.

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