rhino_get_control_points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. It adds the useful detail that weights are returned alongside control points, but does not disclose behavior such as handling of non-NURBS objects or whether trimmed surfaces produce their full control polygon.

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?

One sentence with no fluff; the core action, object type, and inclusion of weights are front-loaded efficiently.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema and a readOnlyHint, the description covers the essential scope. It could be a bit more complete by stating that the object must already exist as a NURBS curve/surface, but that is largely implied by the schema.

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 only required parameter, object_id, is described in the schema as the GUID of the NURBS curve or surface, and the tool description repeats that the geometry is a NURBS curve or surface. The description adds no deeper semantics about the parameter, so it neither compensates for nor benefits from a low schema-coverage signal.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all control points (and weights) of a NURBS curve or surface'), making the tool's read-only purpose immediately recognizable. This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like rhino_set_control_points and rhino_remove_control_point.

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 use case is implied by the word 'Get' and the curve/surface scope, so an agent can infer when to call it for inspection. However, there is no explicit guidance about preferring this over related read tools (e.g., rhino_object_info) or about using rhino_set_control_points for modifications.

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