rhino_line

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint as false, and the description's 'Add' clearly indicates a mutating operation. The description does not contradict annotations, but it also does not disclose additional behavioral details such as document selection defaults, layer creation, or whether the line is added to the active document. This is acceptable for a simple creation tool but adds limited value beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing usage and parameter context.

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 line-creation tool with a well-structured schema, the description provides the minimum viable context. The output schema exists, and the input schema details most parameter semantics, so the description is adequate but leaves usage-selection and behavioral nuances to the agent to infer.

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 mentions 'two points,' which maps to the start and end parameters, but it does not explain required versus optional fields, coordinate units, default z-value, layer behavior, doc_id, or name. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate more; the single phrase is not enough to clarify the full parameter model.

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 'Add a line between two points' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the operation as creating a line segment from a start point to an end point. It conveys the core purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like rhino_polyline or rhino_cmd_line.

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 implies when to use the tool—when a straight line between two points is needed—but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. With many sibling tools for curves, polylines, and other primitives, the agent gets no selection criteria beyond the tool name and basic purpose.

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