rhino_srf_from_3_4_pts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry transparency on its own. It does disclose input serialization and the return keys 'status' and 'command', but it does not clarify whether points must be planar, whether the command executes immediately, or how invalid point counts are handled.

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 well-structured as a docstring with a clear one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns. There is little filler, though the undocumented controller argument slightly detracts from the overall neatness.

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 geometry-creation tool, an agent needs more context about planarity, point order, and how this differs from related surface tools. The description covers basic input and return shape but leaves key usage semantics unresolved, including the schema/description mismatch.

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 only defines pts as a string with no description, so the description's explanation of 3-4 points and tuple/string formats adds meaning. However, it directly contradicts the schema: the description says pts is a list, while the schema declares type string. It also documents a controller parameter that does not appear in the schema, which can mislead 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a surface from 3 or 4 corner points.' This clearly defines both the action and the input constraint, and is enough to distinguish it from loft, sweep, patch, and network-surface siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as rhino_planar_srf, rhino_surface_from_points, or rhino_edge_srf. It also does not mention prerequisites like coplanarity of the points or required point ordering.

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