rhino_replicate_along_curve

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, which tells the agent this mutates state. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: copies are distributed at evenly-spaced parameters, copies reorient to the curve tangent when align_to_tangent is true, and include_endpoints controls endpoint placement. This goes beyond the structured fields and helps the agent predict the outcome. It does not disclose whether the source is copied or moved, but note 'copies' implies copies are created while the source remains.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core operation, then explains two key behavioral flags. It is not bloated, though it could be slightly more structured with paragraph spacing. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

The tool has an output schema and annotations, and the description covers the main behavior. However, it lacks usage prerequisites (e.g., whether count=1 is valid, whether source must be a closed curve, what happens with curves of zero length), and it does not clarify whether the source object remains in place. The description is adequate for basic use but incomplete for edge cases.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. The description explains align_to_tangent and include_endpoints behavior well, and mentions 'evenly-spaced parameters' which relates to count/curve_id. However, it does not mention doc_id or source_object_id/curve_id semantics beyond context, and the parameters are only implicitly referenced. The schema already has descriptions for all parameters, but with 0% coverage the description is expected to compensate more; it partially does.

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 clear verb+resource action: 'Distribute copies of a source object along a curve at evenly-spaced parameters.' It accurately distinguishes this from array tools and curve creation tools. It doesn't name a specific sibling alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 implies usage context (replicating objects along a curve) but does not explicitly say when to choose this over rhino_array_linear, rhino_array_polar, rhino_array_on_curve, rhino_flow_along_curve, or rhino_orient_on_crv. Some guidance is implied by the sibling names, but no exclusionary guidance is provided.

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