Reposition selected objects interactively by defining three reference points to match a new orientation in Rhino.
Orient selected objects using three reference points (interactive).
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
Returns:
Dict with command result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'interactive' and a 'command result' dict, but does not explain whether objects are moved or copied, how the three points are interpreted, whether selection is required beforehand, or what side effects occur.
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 core sentence is concise and front-loaded: 'Orient selected objects using three reference points (interactive).' The Args and Returns boilerplate is minimal but adds little value, especially since there are no schema parameters and the return type is generic.
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?
The description is underspecified for a transformation tool with no annotations. An agent cannot determine the roles of the three reference points, whether the operation is destructive or creates copies, or what interactive steps are expected, and there is no differentiation from the closely related rhino_orient sibling.
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 tool has zero schema parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is little for the description to add. The mention of a RhinoController instance in the docstring is a minor extra that is not part of the input schema.
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 names the verb ('orient'), the target ('selected objects'), and the method ('using three reference points'), so an agent can understand the core purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like rhino_orient or rhino_orient_on_crv/rhino_orient_on_srf.
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 gives a clear context: it is for orienting selected objects via three reference points and is explicitly 'interactive'. However, it provides no when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with alternative orient tools such as rhino_orient, rhino_orient_on_crv, or rhino_orient_on_srf.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.