rhino_ellipsoid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add meaningful behavior: the Rhino prompt sequence (center -> end of first axis -> end of second axis -> end of third axis), the world-axis alignment, and the return shape ('Dict with status and command keys'). However, it never explains what 'status' or 'command' contain, does not state that the object is added to the active document, and mentions a 'controller' argument that is absent from the input schema.

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 front-loaded with the purpose line, followed by a compact procedural explanation, an Args block, and a Returns line. Each section earns its place. The only structural blemish is the 'controller: RhinoController instance' entry, which documents a parameter not present in the input schema and creates noise.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, the core calling needs are met: every schema parameter is explained and the construction behavior is described. An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-specified, though the description usefully names the two keys. Gaps remain: the semantics of 'status'/'command' values are undefined, the center's coordinate frame and units are assumed, and the phantom controller argument is left unresolved.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: x/y/z are defined as the center coordinates and rx/ry/rz as semi-axis lengths along X/Y/Z, adding real meaning beyond the bare integer fields. The phrase 'semi-axis end-points' slightly conflates lengths with coordinates, but the Args block resolves the intended semantics.

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 'Create an ellipsoid in Rhino', a specific verb plus resource, and clarifies the 3D nature by explaining the semi-axis endpoints along world X, Y, Z. It is readily distinguishable from siblings like rhino_ellipse (2D) and rhino_sphere based on the object name and dimensional detail, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this tool is for creating axis-aligned ellipsoids from the purpose line and coordinate convention. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as rhino_sphere for equal radii or rhino_ellipse for 2D ellipses.

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