rhino_run_command

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: false, so the operation is not marked as safe or clearly destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not disclose what happens on error, whether the command runs synchronously, if it returns any output, or whether it may modify the scene. Since annotations are ambiguous, the burden falls on the description, which fails to clarify.

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, unambiguous sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted text, and the brevity is appropriate for the tool's simple purpose.

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 (not shown), the description provides no information about return values, potential errors, or limitations. For a generic command runner that could have wide-ranging effects, this is a significant gap. An agent cannot predict what outcome to expect or what precautions to take, making the description incomplete for safe and correct usage.

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 description coverage is 0% per context signals, meaning the description must explain the parameter. The description simply says 'command' and does not elaborate on format, syntax, or expectations. The schema does provide an example ('_Circle 0,0,0 5'), but the tool description itself adds no value beyond the parameter name, making it insufficient for an agent to know how to construct a valid command.

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 ('Execute') and a clear resource ('a Rhino command string as if typed in the command line'). This distinguishes it from other tools that perform specific operations, as it is a generic command executor. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many specific sibling tools (e.g., rhino_create_circle, rhino_move). It does not mention that it is for arbitrary commands not covered by dedicated tools, nor does it warn about potential side effects. The agent is left to infer when this is appropriate.

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