rhino_dimension_linear

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

The description's 'Add' is consistent with the annotations' readOnlyHint=false, so there is no contradiction, but it adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotation already signals. No mention of document modification, undo behavior, construction-plane dependence (the optional plane parameter), or what happens with the default 'active' document.

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?

At eight words, the description is extremely tight, starts with the verb, and contains no wasted prose. It is slightly too terse for a tool with six parameters and several dimension-type siblings, so it is efficient rather than fully appropriate in size.

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 the tool has an output schema but six input properties and at least three closely related dimension siblings (aligned, angular, add_dimension_linear), an eight-word description is materially incomplete. It omits plane semantics, name/layer assignment, document targeting, and any guidance distinguishing this from the near-duplicate rhino_add_dimension_linear.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, and it does identify the two required inputs ('between two points' maps to point_a and point_b). However, it gives no meaning for the optional parameters plane (dimension orientation), name, layer, or doc_id, so most of the input surface remains semantically unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('add'), a resource ('linear dimension'), and the core input ('between two points'), so an agent can tell what the tool does at a glance. However, it does not differentiate from near-identical siblings such as rhino_add_dimension_linear (nearly the same name) and rhino_dimension_aligned, so an agent cannot pick between them from the description alone.

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 a linear dimension versus the sibling rhino_dimension_aligned or rhino_dimension_angular, which is exactly the kind of distinction this description should clarify (e.g., horizontal/vertical vs. point-to-point measurement). No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection conditions are given, leaving the choice to inference.

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