rhino_cmd_arc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool invokes Rhino's Arc command in center mode and that it returns a dict with 'status' and 'command' keys, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the command creates geometry in the model, what prerequisites exist (e.g., open Rhino document), or how status values should be interpreted.

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 with the core purpose, followed by a short prompt-flow note, parameter list, and return line. It is mostly efficient, though the separately listed 'controller' argument is unnecessary since the schema does not include it, and the prompt sequence could be integrated into the main explanation.

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?

The description covers the main operation, parameter meanings, and return shape, which is adequate for a simple drawing tool. However, it lacks usage guidance, side-effect/prerequisite details, and does not clarify how this tool relates to sibling arc commands. Since an output schema exists for return values, the return dict explanation is a minor extra rather than a critical contribution.

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 compensates well: it explains cx, cy, cz as center coordinates, radius as arc radius, and start/end angles as degrees measured from the +X axis. The only notable issue is that it lists a 'controller' argument that does not appear in the input schema, which could confuse an agent, and it omits units for radius or whether coordinate values should be numeric strings.

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: 'Draw an arc by center, radius, and angular span.' It also identifies the exact Rhino command mode ('Arc command (center mode)') and the interaction sequence, making it clearly distinguishable from circle, ellipse, and other arc-drawing variants.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_arc, rhino_circle, or rhino_ellipse. The description explains the command flow but does not give selection criteria, exclusions, or context for choosing this center-radius-angle approach over other arc construction methods.

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