rhino_pyramid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the core side effect (creating a pyramid), and it mentions the return shape as a dict with 'status' and 'command' keys, which adds useful behavior beyond the schema. However, it does not explain what the status/command values mean, whether an active Rhino document is required, or any failure behavior.

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 a compact docstring with purpose first, then arguments, then returns, making it easy to scan. The only notable redundancy is the unexplained 'controller' argument, which is not part of the input schema and adds 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?

For a simple parametric creation tool, the description covers the essential inputs and the return format. However, it lacks guidance about selecting this tool versus similar solid-creation siblings, and it does not clarify the meaning of 'status' and 'command' or any environment prerequisites, which leaves some contextual gaps.

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%, but the description compensates by defining every schema parameter: x/y/z as center, sides with a '>= 3' constraint, radius as circumradius, and height as apex height above the base. It loses a point because it also lists 'controller: RhinoController instance' even though controller is not present in the input schema, which could confuse an agent about the actual call signature.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a regular pyramid in Rhino,' so an agent can tell it creates a pyramid rather than a sphere or box. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related primitive creation tools like rhino_cone or rhino_cylinder, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as rhino_cone, rhino_polygon, or rhino_box. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and brief purpose.

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