rhino_perspective_angle

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 clearly states the action and the target ('perspective viewport camera lens angle'), but it does not say whether it applies to the active viewport only, whether values are clamped, or whether a perspective viewport is required. This is a simple setter, so the basic behavior is reasonably clear, but some edge behavior is undisclosed.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value. The args note is simple and directly explains the only parameter without padding.

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 single-parameter setter, the description is mostly complete: it names the target, the parameter, units, and examples. It lacks minor but useful context like whether this affects the active viewport or whether it will switch the view to perspective, which is why it does not receive a 5.

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 does: it explains that angle is the 'Lens angle in degrees' and gives examples (45, 60), adding meaning beyond the raw integer type and default value. It could add a valid range or clarify constraints, but it is helpful enough.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set the perspective viewport camera lens angle.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and its target object. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like rhino_camera_set or rhino_view_set, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent is not told to use this only for lens angle adjustments while using rhino_camera_set for other camera properties, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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