rhino_sphere

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

The annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation behavior is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as side effects on the active document, object creation behavior, or error conditions. It simply restates the action without disclosing anything beyond the annotation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the essential verb and object. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, providing little beyond the tool's name and title.

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?

Given the large set of sibling tools, the description is not complete enough to guide correct selection; it does not clarify whether this is a NURBS sphere, how it differs from rhino_subd_sphere, or what defaults apply. The output schema may document return values, but the description leaves key usage context unexplained.

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 needed to compensate by explaining key parameters like center and radius, but it provides none. The schema itself carries some meaning, yet the description contributes nothing to parameter understanding, making this a significant gap.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Add a sphere primitive.' This is clear and unambiguous about the tool's basic function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like rhino_subd_sphere or rhino_cmd_sphere.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternative sphere-related tools, nor any context about intended workflows. The description does not mislead, but it provides no decision support for an agent choosing among many similar creation tools.

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