rhino_annotation_scale_bar

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and title 'Add Scale Bar', so the creation behavior is expected. The description adds beyond annotations by clarifying that the bar geometry uses document units while the label displays real-world distance derived from scale_denominator. It does not disclose details such as label formatting or how the object is inserted into the 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?

Two concise sentences with the action first and the key unit-conversion detail second. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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 creation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description plus schema is nearly complete: it clarifies the crucial scale-bar unit semantics and leaves parameters to self-explanatory names and constraints. Minor gaps such as exact label text or layer behavior are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the main source of semantic meaning, and it explains the important relationship between document units, real-world distance, and scale_denominator. However, it leaves location, divisions, label_height, and total_length to be inferred from their names and schema defaults, so it only partially compensates.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Draw') and a concrete resource ('a divided scale bar with a label'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling annotation tools like north arrows, revision clouds, and callouts because a divided scale bar is a unique object.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as rhino_annotation_callout or dimension tools. It explains unit behavior but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios like adding a scale bar to a plan.

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