rhino_gh_run_script

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions access to all APIs, implying it can mutate the document, but does not explicitly warn that running arbitrary code can have destructive or irreversible effects, nor does it describe any environment constraints. This is a significant gap for a script execution tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the additional context about API access is front-loaded and relevant. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits crucial details: how to structure script code, how inputs are provided and accessed, and what side effects may occur. For a tool executing arbitrary code with only a 1-parameter nested object, the description is too thin. An agent cannot confidently call it without additional schema inspection and guesswork.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It does not explain what `code` should contain beyond the schema's minimal text, nor does it clarify how `inputs` are passed to the script or how to access them inside the script. The tool description adds zero value about parameters, leaving an agent to guess.

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 verb 'Execute' and the resource 'GHPython script inside Grasshopper', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like `rhino_run_python` (which runs in Rhino, not Grasshopper) and the many geometry creation tools. It also adds context about full API access, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context that this runs scripts specifically in Grasshopper, which is enough to differentiate it from `rhino_run_python`. However, it does not explicitly state when *not* to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions or comparative guidance.

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