rhino_cmd_sweep2

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose a return shape with 'status' and 'command' keys and the selection-based workflow, but it does not state side effects, whether the command is executed immediately, or what happens with invalid selections. This is adequate but not rich.

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: core operation first, prerequisite second, then Args/Returns. Every sentence provides necessary information and no filler.

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 gives enough to understand the selection-based workflow and return envelope. However, given the near-twin sibling rhino_sweep2, it does not explain how this command-based variant differs or when to prefer it, and selection-order details for the rails and profile are omitted.

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 input schema has zero properties, so the description has no parameters to explain. It meaningfully covers the effective inputs by naming the RhinoController instance and stating that the real inputs are the pre-selected curves, which is all an agent needs here.

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: 'Sweep a profile along two rail curves.' It clearly identifies the operation and the geometric inputs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from rhino_sweep2 or rhino_subd_sweep2, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite: pre-select two rail curves and at least one profile curve before calling. This is helpful, but there is no when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, especially against rhino_sweep2, so usage context is only partly addressed.

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