rhino_copy

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so it's known this is a mutation. The description adds no additional context about side effects (e.g., whether originals are preserved, what the return value is). It essentially restates the purpose without enriching behavioral understanding beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It states the action and the one optional parameter. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes the returned GUIDs), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention what the tool returns or confirm that the original objects remain unchanged. These gaps are minor but indicate room for improvement.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description mentions 'optional translation offset' but does not explain that it is a Vector3d with x/y/z components, nor that 'guids' is required and accepts an array. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 a specific action ('Duplicate') and a resource ('objects'), plus a distinguishing parameter ('optional translation offset'). It differentiates this tool from siblings like rhino_move (which relocates objects) and rhino_array_linear (which creates multiple copies along an axis) without needing to list them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intent is implied ('duplicate objects') but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided. For a simple operation, the implied usage is acceptable, but it lacks the explicit routing seen in higher-scoring definitions.

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