rhino_scatter

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint: false, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It adds useful behavioral details about the XY boundary interpretation and Z positioning, but it does not explicitly state that new objects are created in the document or whether the source remains unchanged.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by two crucial usage clarifications. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 with a nested schema and detailed property descriptions, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances that are not obvious from the schema: boundary plane interpretation, Z source, and seeding. It does not discuss output, but an output schema exists, so that is less critical.

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 schema already documents parameters well, but context signals indicate low schema description coverage. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics, especially the world-XY boundary handling and Z taken from boundary_min.z, plus the deterministic seed note. It does not fully compensate for all parameters but provides the most important operational details.

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 identifies the operation: scatter copies of a source object inside a 2-D AABB, with optional Z-rotation jitter. It is specific about the resource and geometry, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling array/replicate tools.

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 the tool's use case and gives important usage context: boundary is in world XY, Z comes from boundary_min.z, and seed enables deterministic output. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives like rhino_array_linear or rhino_replicate_along_curve.

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