rhino_cmd_plane_surface

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the action (create a surface) and the return shape (dict with status and command), but does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or whether the command actually executes immediately. Some behavior is disclosed, but significant transparency gaps remain.

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 well-organized with a purpose statement, Args list, and Returns section. It is not wasteful, but the controller argument not present in the schema and the Returns detail that may be redundant with an existing output schema slightly reduce clarity.

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 simple tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return keys, but with 0% schema coverage and no annotations it should do more. It lacks guidance on how this differs from rhino_plane_surface, what 'command' means, and whether an active Rhino document is required.

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 descriptions are absent, and the description compensates by defining x/y/z as the first corner, length as size along X, and width as size along Y. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it also mentions a 'controller' argument that is not present in the input schema, which introduces confusion.

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 tool creates a flat rectangular NURBS surface in Rhino, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not differentiate from the closely named sibling rhino_plane_surface, so it stops short of 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus rhino_plane_surface or other surface creation tools. There are no alternatives, exclusions, or contextual conditions mentioned.

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