rhino_run_script_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Execute' and fails to mention potential side effects such as modifying the Rhino document, arbitrary code execution risks, error handling, or what the return value represents.

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 extremely compact—a single action sentence and one parameter definition. It fronts the core behavior with no filler or redundant content.

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 tool that executes arbitrary Python code in Rhino, the description is too thin. It omits crucial context about side effects on the active document, the Python environment used, whether output is returned, and how this relates to the many other Python execution tools in the sibling list.

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 provides only a bare string type with 0% coverage, but the description compensates by specifying 'Absolute path to the .py script file.' This adds required path semantics and file extension, which is adequate for the single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a Python script file inside Rhino.' This clearly distinguishes file-based execution from command- or macro-based tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like rhino_run_python or rhino_execute_python.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of rhino_run_python, rhino_execute_python, or other Python-related tools. There are no context cues, exclusions, or alternative tool suggestions.

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