rhino_multi_pipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys that the tool creates a multi-pipe from selected curves and that radius affects each curve. It does not disclose units, whether original curves are modified, or behavior with zero or multiple selections, making the transparency adequate but not detailed.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and uses a clean Args block that is easy to scan. The controller line is unnecessary and not reflected in the schema, but the overall text remains concise and readable.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly usable: an agent understands to create pipes from the current selection with a given radius. It lacks explicit notes on selection prerequisites, radius units, and alternatives, and with no annotations those gaps carry more weight.

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. It does explain radius as 'Pipe radius at each curve,' but it omits default, units, and valid range. It also lists a 'controller' argument that does not appear in the input schema, which introduces a mismatch and weakens parameter clarity.

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 concrete action—'Create a multi-pipe'—and identifies the source geometry as 'selected curves,' making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like rhino_pipe_from_curve or rhino_tube, so it stops short of a 5.

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 establishes a clear precondition: curves must already be selected in Rhino, since no curve parameter exists in the schema. It also identifies radius as the adjustable setting. However, it does not mention alternatives or state when to prefer multi_pipe over pipe_from_curve or tube, so some routing is left to inference.

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