rhino_offset_curve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the core operation, the selection precondition, the through-point alternative, and the return dict keys. However, it does not state whether the original curve is kept or deleted, what happens when no curve is selected, or error/status behavior beyond the bare keys.

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 compact and well organized with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes meaning, though documenting 'controller' without it appearing in the schema is a small structural inconsistency.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the operation, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and return structure. Still, it lacks failure behavior, unit expectations, and guidance about selecting this tool over related offset/modify alternatives, making it adequate but not complete.

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 explains distance as 'Perpendicular offset distance' and through_point as an optional 'x,y,z' string alternative, which adds real meaning beyond the schema. The mention of a controller parameter not present in the input schema creates minor confusion.

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 and resource: 'Offset the currently selected curve by a specified distance.' The 'curve' resource clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_offset_surface or rhino_offset_mesh, and mentions the selection prerequisite.

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?

It provides a clear and important usage context: the curve must be pre-selected before calling. It does not, however, explicitly compare with alternatives such as rhino_offset_surface or rhino_modify_offset_curve, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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