rhino_cmd_polyline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the output keys and that the polyline is open, but it omits important behavioral context such as whether the tool modifies the Rhino document, how errors are handled, or how points should be encoded. This is minimal transparency for a drawing/mutation tool.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence gives the tool's purpose, followed by clear Args/Returns sections. It is appropriately sized, though the controller line is misleading and unnecessary given 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?

The description covers the basic operation and return shape, but it is incomplete for reliable selection and invocation. It fails to differentiate from the rhino_polyline sibling, and the points type mismatch plus lack of encoding format creates real ambiguity. For a tool in a large sibling list, this is not enough context.

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 useful semantic detail by defining points as an ordered list of (x, y, z) tuples with at least 2 required. However, this conflicts with the input schema, which declares points as a string, and the description also mentions a 'controller' argument that is absent from the schema. No serialization/encoding instructions are provided, so an agent may invoke the tool incorrectly.

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 starts with a specific action and resource: 'Draw an open polyline through a list of 3-D points,' which clearly conveys the tool's main function. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling rhino_polyline or other polyline-adjacent tools, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_polyline or rhino_smooth_polyline. There are no explicit selection criteria, exclusions, or context signals to help an agent choose correctly, leaving usage entirely implied.

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