rhino_create_circle

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

The description adds little behavioral context beyond the implicit 'create' action. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is expected. The description does not disclose return behavior, impact on existing objects, or any side effects. It only restates the creation intent with no additional value.

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, tightly packed sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the primary action and parameters, making it highly concise and easily parsed.

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?

For a creation tool among many geometric creation siblings, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. It does not explain when to prefer this over an arc, ellipse, or similar tool, nor what the tool returns or any special cases. Though the schema covers parameter details, the overall context remains incomplete for an agent aiming to select and invoke appropriately.

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?

Although the context signal says schema description coverage is 0%, the input schema itself contains descriptive text for most parameters (e.g., 'Center point', 'Plane normal (default Z-up)', 'Circle radius'). The description mentions the key parameters (center, radius, optional plane normal) but omits name and layer. It adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a circle' with given center, radius, and optional plane normal. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like create_arc or create_ellipse based on the name, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives within the text.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_arc or create_ellipse. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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