rhino_cmd_cone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the core behavior, the meaning of base center and 'apex above base,' and the status/command return shape. It does not disclose whether the cone is actually added to the document, whether a live Rhino session is required, or what status values mean.

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 well-structured with a clear opening purpose, an Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence contributes semantic information, and there is no filler.

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, the geometry and return shape are adequately covered, especially since an output schema exists. However, the description lacks guidance on tool selection versus rhino_cone and does not clarify preconditions such as an active Rhino document or controller availability.

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 compensates fully by explaining x/y/z as the base circle center, radius as base radius, and height as the distance to the apex above the base. All five schema-exposed parameters receive meaningful semantics beyond their types and defaults.

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 'Create a cone in Rhino', which is a specific verb and resource, and the geometry parameters make the purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like rhino_cone or rhino_cmd_cylinder, so it stops short of a 5.

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 prefer this tool over rhino_cone or other primitive-creation tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as an open Rhino document or an active controller connection. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'Create.'

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