Create 2D drawing projections from selected 3D objects. Choose a view, layer, and whether to include hidden lines to produce accurate technical drawings.
Generate a 2D drawing projection of 3D objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no behavioral annotations beyond a title, so the description must carry the burden of explaining side effects and behavior. It only says the tool generates a projection; it does not disclose that new curve objects are typically created in the document, that original objects remain unchanged, or that output may be extensive and view-dependent.
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 loses a point because it is so sparse that it does not use its brevity to convey scoping or usage 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 tool with four nested parameters, no behavioral annotations, and many similar siblings, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not mention the active viewport dependency, hidden-line handling, target layer, or the fact that the tool creates a new 2D drawing representation, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the results or configure the call correctly.
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 adds almost no parameter-level meaning. '3D objects' loosely maps to object_ids, but there is no explanation of layer, view_name, or show_hidden behavior in the description. The schema partially documents view_name and show_hidden, but the overall coverage is low and the description does not compensate.
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 ('Generate') and resource ('2D drawing projection of 3D objects'), so an agent can identify what this tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish it from related siblings like rhino_section, rhino_silhouette, or rhino_project_to_cplane, but '2D drawing projection' is reasonably specific to Make2D.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of sibling tools that produce sections, contours, silhouettes, or drawing views. The description gives no context about documentation workflows, view dependence, or when Make2D is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.