rhino_rail_revolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the operation, the pre-selection requirement, and the return keys, but it omits behavioral details such as whether source curves are consumed, whether an axis is needed, or what failure/status cases look like.

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 short and front-loaded with the core definition and prerequisite. The 'Args: controller' line is unnecessary and not schema-backed, which prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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?

It covers the main operation, required selection, and return shape, but leaves gaps: no mention of an axis if the underlying rail-revolve operation requires one, no explanation of 'status'/'command' values, and no guidance about selection state or failure behavior. This is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 properties, and the 'Pre-select' sentence correctly explains how inputs are supplied. However, the description also lists 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance,' which is not present in the schema and could mislead an agent into passing a controller argument that the schema does not define.

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 gives a specific action ('revolve a profile along a rail path curve') and identifies the two key inputs. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings such as rhino_revolve or rhino_sweep1.

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?

It clearly states the required prerequisite: 'Pre-select the profile curve and rail curve before calling.' This is actionable usage guidance, though it does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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