rhino_smooth

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden; it does communicate the core behavior and mechanism: control-point positions are averaged to smooth selected objects. It omits side-effect information, supported object types, reversibility, and selection preconditions, which matter for a mutating tool.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns sections are compact, with no wasted prose. The Args list partially duplicates schema information and includes the off-schema controller parameter, but the overall length is appropriate.

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?

The description covers the essential operation, both parameters, and the return shape, which is adequate for a simple tool. It is not fully complete because it never specifies which object types are supported, whether a selection must already exist, or how this tool relates to the many smoothing and editing siblings.

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 supplies only types and defaults, so the description's explanation of strength as a 0-1 smoothing factor and iterations as the number of passes adds meaningful semantics. The mention of a controller argument that is absent from the schema prevents a perfect 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 definition clearly identifies a specific operation: smoothing selected objects by averaging control-point positions. It does not name or differentiate itself from sibling tools such as rhino_smooth_polyline or rhino_soft_edit_curve, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 'selected objects' implies the tool acts on the current Rhino selection, which is a form of usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternative tool names, and no statement about when not to use this tool, so an agent must infer the appropriate scenario.

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