rhino_create_polyline

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so it's a mutation. The description does not add any context about what happens to the scene, side effects, or object management. It merely restates the action. No additional behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide.

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 two short sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the action and the optional closing behavior. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 simple creation tool with a detailed input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential requirement (ordered vertices) and the optional closure. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, and it doesn't mention the layer or name parameters, though those are in the schema. Overall it is adequate but 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 description does not describe the parameters. The description only adds 'ordered vertices' which is similar to the schema's 'Ordered list of vertices'. It provides no extra meaning about the 'name', 'layer', or 'closed' parameters, which are documented in the schema. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 (Create), the resource (polyline), and the key requirement (through ordered vertices). It also communicates the optional closing behavior. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like rhino_create_line or rhino_create_curve, the description is clear and unambiguous about the tool's function.

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 implies the use case: create a polyline by providing ordered vertices, optionally closing it. It gives basic instructions but does not mention when to choose this vs other creation tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it, so minimal guidance.

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