Orient selected objects onto a surface interactively in Rhino to control placement and alignment.
Orient selected objects on a surface (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 must disclose behavior on its own. It only mentions that the operation is 'interactive' and that it returns a dict with command results. It does not state that the tool modifies object transforms, how selection works, what user interaction is required, or potential side effects.
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 very short, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections are minimal and mostly redundant, but they do not add significant noise.
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?
Given that this is an interactive transform tool with no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, what interaction the user must perform, and whether the operation mutates selected objects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but key behavioral context is missing.
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 parameters, so there is little parameter semantics to document. The description mentions a 'controller: RhinoController instance' arg, which is not reflected in the schema, but since there are no actual parameters, the baseline of 4 applies.
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 action and resource: 'Orient selected objects on a surface.' The parenthetical '(interactive)' adds a distinguishing nuance, and the surface target is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like rhino_orient_on_crv or rhino_orient.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_orient, rhino_orient_on_crv, or other transform tools. The '(interactive)' hint is the only contextual clue, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.