rhino_cmd_polygon

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the tool draws a polygon and clarifies the inscribed/circumscribed distinction, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether a polygon object is persisted in the current Rhino document, whether an open document is required, or how errors are surfaced beyond returning a status.

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 front-loaded with the essential purpose and uses a compact Args/Returns structure. Each parameter line adds meaningful detail, so there is no filler, but the docstring formatting is slightly more verbose than necessary.

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 drawing tool with six parameters, the description covers all inputs and the return envelope. It would be more complete if it stated the expected Rhino session context and explicitly addressed the sibling rhino_polygon, but as given it provides enough information to call the tool correctly.

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 must and does compensate: it explains every key parameter, including the meaning of radius as 'circumradius (vertex distance from center)' and the behavior of inscribed. It loses a point because the description mentions a 'controller' parameter that is absent from the input schema, and it does not specify units or coordinate format for cx, cy, cz.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Draw a regular polygon by center and circumradius.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic drawing tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling rhino_polygon, 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?

The parameter definitions imply that this tool is for creating regular polygons defined by a center and circumradius, which gives clear usage context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like rhino_polygon or rhino_polyline, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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