rhino_freeform_curve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by explaining that the curve approximates rather than interpolates, passes through only the first and last control point when the degree allows, and returns a dict with 'status' and 'command' keys. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the simple 'create' verb.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, key behavioral caveat, then parameters and return info. It has little fluff, but the 'controller: RhinoController instance' line does not correspond to any schema property and is slightly extraneous for an agent.

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 two-parameter creation tool, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and the return format. What is missing is explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling curve-creation tools, and the points type mismatch with the schema leaves a small gap.

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 both parameters. It defines 'points' as control polygon vertices given as (x, y, z) tuples and 'degree' as polynomial degree with a default of 3 (cubic B-spline), adding real semantics. There is a slight mismatch because the schema types 'points' as a string rather than tuples, which creates minor ambiguity.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a control-point (freeform) NURBS spline.' It further distinguishes itself from interpolating curve tools by explicitly stating that the curve does NOT pass through interior points, which differentiates it from siblings like rhino_interpolate_curve.

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 communicates the core behavior of a control-point curve, which implicitly tells an agent this is not for interpolation-through-points scenarios. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over rhino_interpolate_curve or rhino_nurbs_curve, nor does it name alternatives.

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