rhino_array_linear

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral details beyond what the annotations provide. The annotations include readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is a mutating operation, but the description does not explain effects such as whether the original objects are retained or replaced, whether the array is created in the active document, or any limitations such as maximum count or spacing constraints. The schema does provide some constraints (e.g., count max 1024), but those are structured data, not behavioral transparency in the description.

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, concise sentence that efficiently states the core operation. It is appropriately short and front-loaded, but it may be too terse given the lack of parameter and usage details. It earns a 4 because it is concise and not bloated, but it leaves out important context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (one input object with 5 fields), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the direction vector format, the meaning of spacing, count limits, and how it relates to sibling array tools. The annotations indicate mutation but not the effect on the original objects. The output schema exists but is not described; however, the description need not explain return values. Still, the missing usage and parameter semantics make the tool hard to invoke correctly without inspecting the schema deeply.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The schema itself defines parameters with titles but only a couple have descriptions (e.g., doc_id, direction's z component). The description adds no semantic meaning about what 'direction', 'spacing', 'count', or 'object_ids' mean in the context of a linear array. Because the description lacks parameter explanations and the schema has poor coverage, the tool definition provides insufficient guidance.

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 'Array objects along a vector with constant spacing' clearly states the verb ('Array') and the resource ('objects'), and identifies the operation as a linear array along a vector. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like rhino_array_polar or rhino_array_rectangular, but the phrase 'linear' and 'vector' in the tool name and description make the purpose clear.

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 implies the tool is used for creating linear arrays, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_array_polar or rhino_array_rectangular. The description mentions 'constant spacing' which is a useful context, but no exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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