rhino_cmd_loft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the selection-then-command flow, enumerates style options, and notes that closed adds '_Closed=_Yes' for a periodic loft. It does not explicitly state that a new surface is created or that the document is modified, and the controller parameter is described but absent from the schema, which adds mild ambiguity.

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 organized as a concise docstring with a summary, argument definitions, and return information. It is mostly efficient and front-loaded, though some details about defaults are repeated from the schema.

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?

Given only three parameters, no required parameters, and an output schema, the description covers the core workflow, parameter meanings, and return shape well. It is minimally complete for invoking the tool correctly, though it lacks explicit side-effect disclosure and sibling-tool differentiation.

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 compensates by defining curve_selection, listing valid style values, and explaining the closed parameter. It also notes the default '_SelLast'. The mention of a controller parameter that does not appear in the input schema prevents a perfect score because it could confuse an agent about the actual call signature.

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 identifies the action ('Loft through a set of profile curves') and the resource, making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate rhino_cmd_loft from sibling tools like rhino_loft or rhino_sweep1, so it misses the full distinction expected for 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?

It provides a clear procedural note that curves are selected first via curve_selection and then the Loft command is run. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so usage context is implied rather than fully stated.

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