run_grasshopper_definition

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions optional output saving but does not describe whether the tool modifies the Rhino document, if there are side effects, or if it requires specific permissions. The return value is vaguely described as 'Result of the operation', lacking details on type or content. Potential issues like long execution times are not mentioned.

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 concise and well-structured as a docstring with clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Each sentence is necessary and conveys essential information without redundancy or extra verbiage.

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 that there are three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the nature of the return value, error behavior, performance considerations, or prerequisites (e.g., Rhino must be running, Grasshopper components must be available). Additional details about the execution environment would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context to all three parameters beyond what the input schema provides. It clarifies that 'file_path' being None refers to the current definition, and that 'output_path' is only relevant when 'save_output' is True. This adds conditional logic that is not in the schema. However, it could further specify valid file extensions or output formats.

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 action 'Run a Grasshopper definition' which is a verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_grasshopper_component' and 'execute_grasshopper_code' by focusing on running a definition file. However, it could be more specific about what 'running' entails (e.g., generating geometry or performing computations).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_grasshopper_code'. The description does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or how to choose among sibling tools. There is no mention of context such as needing an active Rhino document or the component availability.

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