rhino_cmd_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention that the plane origin and normal are set interactively in Rhino, and that the return is a 'Dict with command result.' However, it does not state whether the command creates a new object in the document, whether prior selection is required before calling, or any side effects. It is partially transparent but leaves key behavioral aspects implicit.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a note about interactivity, and a clear parameter listing. No redundant or filler content. It earns full marks for efficiency.

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 no annotations and a simple tool, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and return type, but lacks details like whether surfaces must be preselected, what the 'command result' contains, or typical use cases. It is adequate for a minimal understanding but leaves several operational questions unanswered.

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 schema provides no per-parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), so the tool description is the only source of meaning. It explains both parameters: 'controller: Rhino instance' and 'plane: Named plane hint ('WorldXY', 'WorldYZ', 'WorldXZ').' This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and gives the agent the necessary value constraints.

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's function: 'Create a cross-section curve through selected surfaces at a plane.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'selected surfaces' distinguishes it from tools that operate on all objects. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like rhino_contour or rhino_section_at_axis, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names alternative tools nor explains scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only contextual hint is that the plane is set interactively, which is a behavioral detail, not a usage recommendation.

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