rhino_angle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is 'interactive' (a genuinely useful signal that the agent will need user input) and that it returns a dict, but it does not explain what interaction entails (e.g., selecting two lines in the viewport), whether the operation is read-only, what units the result uses, or whether a document with valid geometry must be open.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by a cleanly structured Args/Returns docstring. It earns its keep with minimal waste, though the 'Dict with command result' return boilerplate is low-information and the controller argument documentation is redundant given the empty schema.

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 0-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what it measures and that it is interactive. But it leaves gaps in interaction specifics (what the user must pick), result semantics (unit of the angle), and use-case context relative to the large sibling set. Adequate but not complete for an agent with no other clues.

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 tool has 0 parameters in the input schema, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric; there is nothing for the description to elaborate on. However, the description's Args section documents 'controller: RhinoController instance,' which is not in the schema and is likely an internally injected dependency rather than a real agent-facing parameter — a minor inconsistency that does not harm the call contract.

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 ('measure') and resource ('angle between two lines'), which is clear enough to convey the core function. The '(interactive)' qualifier adds useful scope context, and the resource is specific enough to distinguish it from measurement siblings like rhino_draft_angle or rhino_curve_continuity, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings such as rhino_draft_angle, rhino_dimension_angular, or rhino_curve_continuity. The word 'interactive' implies the user will be engaged, but no context is given about when this is the right choice or when another angle-related tool would be preferable.

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