rhino_array_on_curve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the interactive selection-order requirement, which is genuinely valuable for an agent. However, it does not state whether the original objects are preserved, whether copies are grouped, how spacing is determined, or what happens if no curve is selected.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose directly. The Args/Returns formatting is clear and scannable, with only minor redundancy from the docstring-style header lines.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the most critical operational detail — interactive selection order — is present. The main gaps are lack of differentiation from rhino_replicate_along_curve and no statement about whether originals are retained. The definition is passable but not rich.

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 must compensate. It defines count as 'Number of copies along the curve,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema field, though it is mildly ambiguous whether count includes the original object. It also documents the controller argument, which does not appear in the schema at all.

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 and resource: 'Array selected objects along a curve.' This clearly communicates the operation and inherently distinguishes it from linear, polar, and rectangular array siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast itself against the similar rhino_replicate_along_curve tool.

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 provides an operational prerequisite — 'The curve must be selected after the objects (interactive)' — which is useful context for calling the tool. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_array_linear, rhino_array_polar, or rhino_replicate_along_curve. Usage context is implied by the operation name rather than stated.

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