rhino_distribute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful mechanism ('compute bounding-box centres and re-space them') and states it acts on selected objects. It does not disclose side effects such as whether positions are permanently modified, what happens with an empty selection, or undo/reversibility.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clean Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds either purpose, mechanism, or parameter meaning with 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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core call details: selection scope, direction values, and spacing method. It is incomplete on usage boundaries versus related sibling tools and on what the command does when no objects are selected, which matters for a mutating operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the direction parameter; it does, mapping 'Horizontal' to X, 'Vertical' to Y, and 'Depth' to Z. The only minor gap is mentioning a controller argument in Args that does not appear in the input schema, likely an injected context rather than a user-supplied parameter.

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 action and resource: 'Distribute selected objects evenly along a direction.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as rhino_array_linear or rhino_align, so it stops short of 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 context is clear — selected objects, a direction, even spacing — so an agent can infer when to call it. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements and no named alternatives, leaving the choice among distribute, align, or array tools to inference.

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