rhino_interpcrv

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool creates a curve and returns a dict with 'status' and 'command.' It does not describe document-level side effects, validation failures, coordinate handling, or what the 'command' value represents.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args block is organized and readable, though it includes a misleading 'controller' argument and an inconsistent type description for 'points' that could have been clarified in fewer words.

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?

Given the 0% schema coverage and absent annotations, the description is incomplete. It mentions the minimum point count and default degree but omits the required serialization format for points, error behavior, whether the curve is added to the active Rhino document, and how this differs from rhino_interpolate_curve. An agent would still face significant ambiguity when actually invoking the tool.

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 explains the intended meaning of 'points' and 'degree,' which is useful because schema description coverage is 0%. However, the schema declares 'points' as a string while the description says it is an ordered list of (x, y, z) tuples, creating a direct contradiction. It also documents a 'controller' argument that is absent from the input schema, making the parameter guidance unreliable.

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 tool action and resource: 'Create an interpolated NURBS curve that passes through all given points.' The purpose is not a tautology and distinguishes the core behavior from direct NURBS construction or editing tools. However, it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_interpolate_curve, rhino_nurbs_curve, or rhino_curve_split. The description implies interpolation via 'passes through all given points,' but it never states exclusions or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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