rhino_cmd_ellipse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the return shape ('Dict with 'status' and 'command' keys'), which hints at a command-builder/proxy behavior worth knowing. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether the command is actually executed or merely returned for later use, and says nothing about failure behavior or side effects.

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 clean, front-loaded docstring: one sentence summarizes the action, followed by a compact Args block and a one-line Returns block. Every line earns its place and it is appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool, though the format is a bit mechanical.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, and the description does explain all five parameters and the return dict. However, it omits units for the center and radii (Rhino document units are never mentioned), leaves the controller-parameter mismatch unresolved, and provides no grouping/differentiation from the near-identical rhino_ellipse sibling. Adequate for a simple creation tool but with clear gaps.

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 fully compensates by explaining the semantic meaning of every schema parameter: cx/cy/cz as the center and rx/ry as semi-axis radii along X and Y. This adds real value beyond the bare string-typed schema. Minor deduction because all schema values are typed 'string' but the description never clarifies that numeric strings are expected, and it references a 'controller' argument not present in the schema.

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 ('Draw'), a resource ('an ellipse'), and the exact construction method ('by center, X semi-axis, and Y semi-axis'). This is clear and specific enough to distinguish from most geometry tools, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool rhino_ellipse, which likely has overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like rhino_ellipse, rhino_circle, and rhino_arc present, an agent gets no information about whether to reach for this command-style variant over the standard rhino_ellipse tool, and no mention of prerequisites or context.

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