rhino_get_module_functions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns all functions with signatures, but does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. The description does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal extra transparency 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 concise with two efficient sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second provides a clear usage instruction. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one read parameter, output schema present), the description comprehensively covers what the tool does and how to use it. The output schema likely documents return values, so the description need not elaborate further.

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 input schema has one parameter (module_name) with a description in the schema ('Module name (e.g. 'curve', 'surface', 'mesh')') but context indicates schema description coverage is 0%. The description text only implies the need for a module name via 'specific RhinoScript module', adding no additional meaning about the parameter format or constraints.

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 'Get all functions in a specific RhinoScript module with signatures', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('functions in a specific RhinoScript module'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rhino_list_rhinoscript_modules (lists modules) and rhino_search_rhinoscript_functions (searches across modules).

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 description explicitly guides the user to first use rhino_list_rhinoscript_modules() and then call this tool to browse a module's full API. This provides clear context and an alternative action, making the usage scenario very clear.

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