rhino_cmd_helix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the tool creates a helix and returns a dict with 'status' and 'command' keys, which is useful. However, it does not explain what the 'command' key contains, whether geometry is directly added to the Rhino document, or what side effects or failure conditions might occur.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a compact clarifying note, an args list, and a returns line. It avoids filler and keeps each line purposeful, though the constructor-style docstring layout is slightly longer than necessary for an MCP tool description.

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 core creation intent, parameter meanings, and return shape, but is missing guidance on axis orientation, coordinate units, and how this tool differs from rhino_helix. Given the large sibling list and the near-duplicate rhino_helix/rhino_spiral tools, more contextual guidance would be needed for confident selection and use.

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?

The description adds real semantic meaning to the schema parameters: x/y/z as base point, pitch as vertical distance per full turn, turns as count, and radius as constant radius. However, it lists 'controller' as an argument even though the input schema omits it, and it does not clarify why x, y, and z are typed as strings or what units are expected. Thus it only partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a cylindrical helix curve in Rhino') and identifies the resource being created. It also adds the useful clarifying relationship to rhino_spiral, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the equally named sibling rhino_helix, so it falls short of full sibling-level distinction.

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 clear selection context by explaining that this is a special case of rhino_spiral where start_radius equals end_radius, which tells the agent when this constant-radius variant is appropriate. It does not fully spell out explicit when-not-to-use cases or compare against rhino_helix, so it is not a complete routing guide.

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