Opens the Document Properties dialog to review and modify active Rhino model settings, including units, tolerances, and rendering options.
Open the Document Properties dialog.
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
Returns:
Dict with command result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the dialog is opened and a result dict is returned. It does not reveal whether this is a UI-blocking operation, whether a document must be open, whether it changes any state, or what the command result contains.
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 core description is short and front-loaded, which is good. However, the 'Args' section is unnecessary and inaccurate given the empty schema, and the 'Returns' section is generic boilerplate rather than specific useful information.
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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic action, but it lacks behavioral context such as document prerequisites, whether the dialog blocks execution, and how this relates to similar tools like rhino_document_summary or rhino_object_properties_dialog. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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 parameters, so the baseline would normally be 4, but the description explicitly lists 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance', which is misleading because the schema accepts no arguments. This contradiction between the description and schema can lead an agent to attempt passing a parameter that the tool does not declare.
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 action ('Open the Document Properties dialog') on a clear resource, so the purpose is understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like rhino_document_settings, rhino_document_summary, or rhino_object_properties_dialog, 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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The description only states what it does, not when an agent should choose it or when another document-related tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.