rhino_paraboloid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a surface, names the underlying Rhino command, and documents the return dictionary, which is useful. It does not discuss what happens in the active Rhino document, coordinate-system assumptions, or failure behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 organized into short labeled sections (purpose, prompt sequence, args, returns) and contains little filler. The slight redundancy between 'focus/apex point' and 'apex (tip)' and the inclusion of the schema-mismatched controller argument keep it from being a 5.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers the key inputs and return shape, but it leaves out units, coordinate-system behavior, and the discrepancy with the controller parameter. The output schema mitigates some return-value ambiguity, but the gaps still matter for reliable invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description has to explain the parameters; it defines x/y/z as the apex, radius as the base radius, and height as the apex-to-base distance. However, it also lists a 'controller' argument that is absent from the input schema, and it omits units and orientation, which undermines completeness.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a paraboloid surface in Rhino using the Paraboloid command.' Because no sibling tool creates a paraboloid and the command name is explicit, an agent can distinguish this from the other primitive-creation siblings without opening the schema.

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 the expected Rhino prompt sequence ('focus/apex point -> radius at base -> height'), which tells the agent how the command consumes inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as cone, sphere, or cylinder, nor are there prerequisites or exclusions.

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