rhino_create_line

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't contradict them. However, it adds no behavioral detail beyond the obvious 'creates' action. It doesn't disclose what happens on duplicate executions (idempotency is false), the coordinate system, units, or whether a new object is returned. Given the minimal annotations, the description should carry more burden and explain at least that a new line object is added to the model, which it does not.

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, which is succinct and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters and optional fields. It earns its place but does not provide the necessary detail to be genuinely helpful, so it falls short of a 4 or 5.

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 tool that creates a 3D line with start/end points and optional name/layer, the description is incomplete. It does not mention output object type, required vs. optional parameters, or any constraints. The presence of many sibling create tools increases the need for distinguishing context, which is absent. A complete description should at least note that it creates a straight line segment in the Rhino document and that coordinates are in the current model units.

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 description does not explain any of the parameters (start, end, name, layer). The context signal indicates 0% schema description coverage, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. It fails to do so, providing no information about how coordinates are specified, defaults, or the meaning of optional fields. The agent would have to rely on the schema itself, which is sparse regarding usage context.

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 clear action ('Create a line') and the key inputs (start to end point). It is specific enough for the resource type, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like rhino_create_curve or rhino_create_polyline, which serve similar geometric creation purposes. The verb and resource are unambiguous, so a 4 is warranted, not a 5.

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. There is no mention of conditions (e.g., straight vs. curved lines), no exclusions, and no reference to other create tools. An agent would have to infer from context that this is the tool for straight line segments, but without explicit routing, the description fails to aid tool selection.

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