rhino_array_linear

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Create' but does not explain whether the original objects are modified or copied, whether new objects are returned, or any side effects. No information is given about how existing geometry is affected.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it is almost too terse—it conveys the high-level action but leaves all operational detail to the schema, which is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 moderate complexity (one nested parameters object with four properties) and a rich schema that explains each field, the description provides the essential idea but nothing more. It does not mention output behavior or any rules about count/include original, which an agent might need. The schema compensates partially, but the description alone is not comprehensive.

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 tool description adds no parameter detail. While the schema itself provides descriptions for count, guids, spacing, and direction, the description does not compensate for the low coverage. It vaguely mentions 'direction' and 'even spacing' but omits required inputs like guids and count, and clarifies nothing about spacing defaults or count semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create'), names the resource ('linear array of objects'), and specifies the key traits ('along a direction with even spacing'). This is unambiguous and naturally distinguishes it from the sibling tool rhino_array_polar (polar array).

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 like rhino_array_polar or rhino_copy. It does not state any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer from the name alone when this is the right choice.

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