rhino_extend_curve

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the pre-selection requirement and the return dictionary keys, but it does not disclose whether the original curve is modified or replaced, whether the operation is reversible, what the 'command' string will be, or what 'status' values may appear. For a mutating geometry tool, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. The Args/Returns structure is readable and avoids excessive prose. The mention of a 'controller' parameter that does not appear in the schema is a minor structural flaw, but the overall length and organization are appropriate.

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 geometry-modification tool with no annotations and a low-information schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the caller specifies which end(s) to extend, what units 'length' uses, what happens if no curve is selected, or how the result is returned beyond a vague status/command dict. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool reliably without additional assumptions.

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 for the 'length' parameter. It only says 'Extension length,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter's title 'Length.' It does not explain units, valid ranges, or how the length relates to extending one or both ends. Additionally, the description mentions a 'controller' argument that is absent from the input schema, creating confusion.

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 clearly states the operation: extend a selected curve by a fixed length from one or both ends. It names the object type (curve) and the action (extend), which distinguishes it from curve-creation and curve-offset siblings. However, it does not explicitly explain how 'one or both ends' is controlled, leaving some ambiguity.

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 description provides a clear prerequisite: 'The curve must be pre-selected before calling this function.' This tells the agent when it can be invoked, but it does not offer guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like rhino_extrude_curve or rhino_offset_curve, nor does it state when not to use it.

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