Add a hatch fill to any closed curve by specifying pattern type and scale factor.
Add a hatch fill to a selected closed curve.
Args:
hatch_pattern: Hatch pattern name (e.g. 'Solid', 'Grid', 'Dots').
scale: Pattern scale factor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scale | No | ||
| hatch_pattern | No | Solid |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the basic mutation without explaining what happens if no curve is selected, whether the curve must be planar, how pattern names are validated, or what side effects occur in the Rhino document.
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 compact, front-loads the core action and prerequisite, and uses a short Args list for the two parameters. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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?
The description covers the basic action and prerequisites, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. However, important operational context is missing, such as failure behavior for invalid selections, pattern availability, and relationship to the similar rhino_hatch sibling.
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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It gives a brief definition for each parameter and useful examples for hatch_pattern, but it leaves out valid pattern enumeration, scale constraints, and what values are appropriate beyond the defaults.
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 ('Add'), a specific resource ('hatch fill'), and a target ('selected closed curve'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling rhino_hatch tool, but the intended operation is otherwise 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?
It implies usage by requiring a selected closed curve, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. With sibling rhino_hatch available, an agent gets no help deciding between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.