rhino_truncated_cone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects and behavior. It does disclose the prompt sequence (base center, base radius, height, top radius), which gives some insight into the underlying command's behavior, but it does not mention that the tool creates a new object in the Rhino document or any other side effects.

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 brief and to the point—two sentences with no extraneous information. The purpose is front-loaded, and the prompt order is delivered efficiently.

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 simple creation tool, the description covers the action and input order, and the output schema handles return values. However, it lacks usage context, such as when to choose this over rhino_cone or how it fits among the many sibling tools. Additional context on prerequisites or typical use cases would make it more complete.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. The prompt order implicitly maps x,y,z to base center, bottom_radius to base radius, height, and top_radius, but it does not elaborate on units, coordinate systems, or detailed meanings. This is a partial but not comprehensive explanation.

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 states the tool creates a truncated cone (frustum) using the TruncatedCone command, which distinguishes it from sibling shape-creation tools like cone, cylinder, or box. The verb 'Create' and the specific resource make the purpose 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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as rhino_cone or rhino_cmd_cone. The description only states what it does and the prompt order, with no mention of scenarios or conditions that would make this the appropriate choice.

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