rhino_flow

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation signals mutation, but the description does not explain what 'bridge only' means, whether original objects are modified or copied, or what side effects occur. The behavioral trait 'bridge only' is mentioned but not clarified, placing too much burden on ambiguous wording.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The key operation is front-loaded, and every word earns its place, even if the 'bridge only' qualifier is ambiguous.

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 tool that mutates objects based on two curves, the description lacks critical context: whether source objects are preserved, what object types are supported, what 'bridge only' restricts, and why this differs from the nearly identical sibling rhino_flow_along_curve. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these 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 description loosely maps to the parameters: 'objects' to object_ids, 'one curve' to base_curve_id, and 'another' to target_curve_id. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not explain doc_id, the exact meaning of object_ids, or what 'bridge only' implies for parameter usage.

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 ('Flow') and resource ('objects from one curve onto another'), making the core operation clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like rhino_flow_along_curve, and the parenthetical 'bridge only' is left unexplained.

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 this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_flow_along_curve or rhino_cmd_flow_along_curve. No prerequisites, exclusions, or condition-based routing are provided; an agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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