rhino_get_user_text

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read' is consistent. It adds that the tool reads 'key-value metadata', but does not describe behavior for missing objects, keys, or error conditions. Output schema exists to cover return values, so the description is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. No extraneous words.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the required 'object_id' parameter or specify that omitting 'key' returns all keys (though this is in the schema). More context 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 does not mention any parameters. Although the input schema provides descriptions for two of three parameters (key, doc_id), the object_id parameter lacks a description. The description adds no value beyond the schema, and the 0% schema description coverage metric (for the description itself) indicates a 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('user text (key-value metadata)') and its attachment ('to an object'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'rhino_set_user_text' by the action of reading vs writing.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other read tools (e.g., 'rhino_object_info') or when to use 'rhino_set_user_text' for writing. The context is implied but not stated.

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