Displays normal and/or curve direction of selected Rhino objects, clarifying orientation for accurate modeling and analysis.
Show the normal and/or curve direction of selected objects.
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
Returns:
Dict with command result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Show' and returns a 'Dict with command result,' but it does not disclose whether the direction display is a temporary viewport overlay, a toggle, or a persistent change, nor what happens when nothing is selected. This is thin for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and free of excess, and the Args/Returns boilerplate is short. The redundant 'controller' line slightly detracts, but overall the description is appropriately concise and structured.
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 no-parameter display tool, the core action is stated, and the output schema exists so a generic 'Dict' return is less critical. Still, the description omits the selection prerequisite, whether it toggles off, and any viewport side effects, leaving an agent to infer those details.
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 has zero parameters, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. However, the description mentions 'controller: RhinoController instance' under Args even though this parameter does not appear in the schema, which could confuse an agent into thinking it must supply an argument. This inconsistency reduces the score.
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 ('Show') and identifies the resource as 'the normal and/or curve direction of selected objects,' which is clear and distinct enough from sibling tools like show_edges or flip. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from possible overlapping tools, but the action and target are 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 phrase 'of selected objects' implies the tool operates on the current selection, giving a hint about when it applies. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over alternatives, does not mention selection prerequisites explicitly, and provides no exclusions or fallback tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.