rhino_scale_1d

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 does reveal an important interactive behavior: the user must pick origin and direction. However, it does not mention consequences of no selection, whether the operation mutates the original objects, or any undo/reversibility information.

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 main action, followed by the important interactive requirement. The Args/Returns formatting is clean, though the controller line is extraneous since controller is not a schema parameter.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: selected objects, interactive origin/direction picking, and the scale factor. It is slightly lacking in edge-case guidance, but overall sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 must compensate, but it only says 'factor: Scale factor.' This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's 'Factor' title and default value. It also mentions a 'controller' argument that is not present in the input schema, which may confuse an agent.

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 clearly states the tool scales selected objects in one direction (1-D scale), which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from uniform or 2-D scaling via 'one direction', though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like rhino_scale or rhino_scale_2d.

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 makes clear that the user must pick the origin and scale direction interactively, which is key usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over rhino_scale, rhino_scale_2d, or rhino_scale_nu, leaving the selection among siblings to inference.

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