rhino_cmd_rectangle

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral effects, but it only says 'Draw' and mentions a return dict with status/command. It does not clarify that this creates a new object in the active document, which layer or plane it affects, or what side effects occur. The 'two corner points' phrasing also misrepresents the actual behavior.

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 organized with Args/Returns sections, but the redundant and inaccurate 'two corner points' clause and the unused controller argument add confusion without adding value.

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?

It provides enough parameter-level information to attempt a basic call, but it lacks units, coordinate system/plane context, and clarification of the corner-vs-dimension mismatch. Given no annotations, this leaves important context unresolved.

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 parameter meanings in the description are essential and mostly helpful: x/y/z as first corner, width along the X axis, height along the Y axis. However, all parameters are strings and the description does not explain the expected format or units, and it lists a 'controller' argument that is absent from the schema.

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 states the core action and object ('Draw a planar rectangle'), but it is misleading: it says 'defined by two corner points' while the parameters only define one corner plus width and height. It also does not differentiate this from the closely named sibling rhino_rectangle.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus rhino_rectangle, rhino_box, or other geometry-creation tools. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided.

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