rhino_pipe_from_curve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it runs curve_select_cmd first, then Pipe with the given radius and cap style, and it explains that cap=True yields a solid while False leaves ends open. This is useful, but it omits other behavioral traits an agent might need, such as units for radius, error behavior when no curve exists, or whether the source curve is retained or consumed.

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 appropriately sized and well organized: a one-sentence purpose, a short explanation of the execution flow, a compact Args block, and a Returns line. Each section earns its place without redundancy, though the multi-line formatting is slightly heavier than necessary.

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 moderate-complexity creation tool with an output schema already describing the return dict, the description covers the main workflow, parameters, and the cap behavior. It is reasonably complete for selecting and invoking the tool, with only minor omissions around radius units and failure handling when no curve is available.

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, and it largely does: it defines curve_select_cmd as the selection command with the default explained, radius as the pipe outer radius, and cap as the solid/end-capping toggle. One minor gap is that 'controller' is documented in Args but does not appear in the input schema, which could confuse an agent about what to pass.

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 pipe solid around a previously created (or selected) curve.' It clearly states the operation, the input requirement, and the two-stage execution (select curve, run Pipe). This distinguishes it from siblings like rhino_extrude_curve or rhino_tube without ambiguity.

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 establishes the prerequisite context: a curve must already exist or be selected, and it notes the default _SelLast targets the most recently created object. This effectively tells the agent when to call the tool (after creating a curve). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sequencing guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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