rhino_arc

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Add' action is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the mutation hint, such as active document behavior, layer creation, or side effects.

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?

One short sentence with the action and core inputs front-loaded. Every word earns its place; no repetition of the title or schema noise.

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 creation tool with an output schema and a mutation annotation, the description is minimally viable: an agent can construct the required args. It is incomplete for selection among many sibling creation tools, especially rhino_cmd_arc, but the schema fills most invocation gaps.

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 description names the three core parameters (centre, radius, sweep angle) and clarifies degrees, which partially compensates for the 0% top-level schema description coverage. It adds no constraint details and omits the optional name, layer, and doc_id parameters, though the nested schema documents them.

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 ('Add'), a resource ('an arc'), and the defining construction inputs (centre, radius, sweep angle in degrees). It is clear, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as rhino_cmd_arc, so it misses the top distinction criterion.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives like rhino_cmd_arc, rhino_circle, or the many other curve-creation tools. The construction method is implied by the parameter list, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion.

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