rhino_create_pipe

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutating tool (readOnlyHint=false), and the description confirms it creates an object. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether the rail curve is modified), output properties, or default behaviors like capping. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to disclose anything beyond the immediate action.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and is appropriately sized for a tool that creates a pipe. It doesn't waste space on unnecessary details, and the structure is clear.

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, the description is minimally acceptable. It indicates the main prerequisite (existing rail curve) and the output is a pipe. However, it doesn't explain how the pipe is generated (e.g., from a profile or as a closed solid), doesn't mention the default capping behavior, and doesn't clarify that the radius is required. The provided schema and output schema fill some gaps, but the description leaves room for ambiguity in an agent's decision-making.

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 descriptions for all parameters (curve_guid, radius, cap, name, layer), but the tool description provides virtually no parameter information—it only implies the need for a curve via 'along an existing rail curve.' Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not compensate. Since the required 'radius' is not mentioned, an agent might be unsure what to provide without opening the schema, though the schema itself is clear.

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 the action: 'Create a pipe (tube) along an existing rail curve.' It specifies the resource (pipe along a curve) and implies the need for an existing curve. It distinguishes from other create tools like rhino_create_cylinder or rhino_create_sweep by focusing on the rail curve. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the required 'radius' parameter or how the pipe is constructed, so it falls short of a perfect 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention conditions like 'use when you have an existing curve' or contrast with similar tools like sweep. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated beyond the implication of an existing rail curve. This is a clear gap.

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