rhino_cmd_contour

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 usefully discloses that base point and direction are picked interactively and that the command operates on the selected surfaces or meshes, but it does not state whether the command blocks waiting for user input, requires a live Rhino session, or what document-side side effects occur beyond creating curves.

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 main action, the key interactive caveat, the argument semantics, and the return type are each covered in a few purposeful lines. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, target objects, interactive placement behavior, and result type. It is missing only explicit sibling differentiation and units, but it is otherwise self-contained for basic invocation.

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%, but the description defines spacing as 'Distance between contour planes,' which adds real meaning beyond the schema title and default. It also mentions the controller argument, though the input schema only exposes spacing and units or positivity constraints are not stated.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (Create) and resource (contour curves on selected surfaces or meshes), so an agent can tell what operation is being offered. It is clear, though it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling rhino_contour.

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 on when to use this tool instead of rhino_contour, rhino_section, or other contour-related tools. The interactive picking note implies a use case, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisites are given.

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