Orients selected Rhino objects along a chosen curve through interactive input, enabling quick alignment of geometry to a path.
Orient selected objects along a curve (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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation moves or copies objects, whether it is destructive, how orientation is computed, or what 'interactive' means in practice. This is a significant transparency gap for a transformation tool.
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 main sentence is front-loaded and concise. However, the Args and Returns lines are generic boilerplate ('Dict with command result') that add no decision value, so the description is not as tight as it could be.
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?
Even with an output schema and no parameters, the description does not explain what the user must do during interaction, whether original geometry is preserved or modified, or how this differs from closely related orient/flow/array tools. The operation remains opaque beyond its basic label.
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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no user parameters to explain, giving a baseline of 4. The docstring's 'controller: RhinoController instance' line is boilerplate and not reflected in the schema, but it does not describe a real callable parameter and therefore neither clarifies nor severely harms parameter understanding.
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?
States a concrete verb and resource: 'Orient selected objects along a curve', which clearly identifies what the tool does. The parenthetical 'interactive' adds workflow context, and 'along a curve' distinguishes it from surface-oriented siblings, though it does not name an alternative.
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 when-to-use guidance is given relative to similar tools like rhino_orient_on_srf, rhino_flow_along_curve, or rhino_replicate_along_curve. 'Interactive' hints at a manual workflow, but prerequisites such as pre-selecting objects or picking a curve are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.