rhino_cmd_line

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, yet it only reveals the return dict keys ('status' and 'command'), which the output schema already documents. It does not state failure behavior, whether an active model must exist, or how invalid coordinates are handled, leaving the main side effects and error traits undisclosed.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded and the Args/Returns docstring is short and scannable, with each coordinate line earning its place. The misleading 'controller' line is the only extraneous entry, which prevents a top score.

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 six-required-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should resolve type ambiguity and interface mismatches, but it fails to explain the string-coordinate format and lists a parameter that is not in the schema. The unresolved relationship to the near-identical rhino_line sibling further leaves an agent unable to call or select it reliably.

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 genuine meaning by labeling x1/y1/z1 as the start point and x2/y2/z2 as the end point, which the bare schema titles lack. However, it also documents a 'controller' argument that is absent from the input schema, and it never explains the expected string format for the numeric coordinates, so at 0% schema coverage the interpretive gap remains significant.

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 opening sentence, 'Draw a straight line between two world-space points,' is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the operation. However, the tool list contains a near-identical sibling, rhino_line, and the description offers nothing that distinguishes this 'cmd' variant from it, so it is clear but not self-differentiating.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like rhino_line, rhino_polyline, or rhino_arc, and no mention of prerequisites such as an open document. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the parameter list.

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