rhino_reparameterize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target, but does not reveal side effects such as whether the geometry shape changes, whether object history is affected, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a meaningful gap for a modifying operation.

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 core purpose is stated in one concise, front-loaded sentence. The 'Args:' and 'Returns:' boilerplate is somewhat redundant, but it is short and does not significantly distract from the main message.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable: it names the target objects and the operation. However, it omits practical context such as the need for an active document, what happens if unsupported objects are selected, and any prerequisites beyond 'selected.' These gaps make it adequate but not 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 parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to cover. The mention of an internal 'controller: RhinoController instance' is implementation detail rather than a user-facing schema parameter, and it does not conflict with the empty schema. Thus the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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: 'Reparameterize selected curves or surfaces to natural parameterization.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from dozens of sibling geometry tools. It loses one point because it does not clarify what 'natural parameterization' changes about the objects.

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 phrase 'selected curves or surfaces' implies the tool operates on the current Rhino selection, giving some usage context. However, it does not state when to choose this over alternatives like rebuild_curve, match_surface, or other parameterization tools, nor does it mention what happens if nothing is selected.

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