rhino_run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the command is raw and literal, including parameters and Enter tokens, and that rhino_id selects an instance. However, it does not warn that executing raw commands can modify or destroy geometry, mention error behavior, or describe whether the command runs synchronously.

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?

One lead sentence plus two compact parameter definitions, with no filler or repetition. The most important constraint, that the command is raw and complete, is front-loaded.

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 generic raw-command tool, the input contract is adequately complete: the command format and optional instance are covered, and the output schema exists to describe return values. It lacks a brief example or a note about side effects and prerequisites, but the core calling contract is clear.

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 provides all semantic meaning for the parameters. It precisely defines command as a full Rhino command string including parameters and Enter tokens, and rhino_id as an optional instance ID, enriching what the bare schema provides.

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 action ('Send'), a specific resource ('raw Rhino command string'), and the key constraint that the string includes parameters and Enter tokens. This distinguishes it from specialized geometry/analysis tools and from run_macro/run_python/run_csharp siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of the hundreds of dedicated Rhino sibling tools. It does not state that this is a fallback for commands without a dedicated tool, nor mention prerequisites such as an open document or running Rhino instance.

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