rhino_object_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description only adds that it returns geometry type, layer, bbox, etc. No mention of error handling (e.g., if object_id is invalid) or performance implications. 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action 'Get detailed info', examples in parentheses. No wasted words. Efficient.

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 output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The low parameter count and simple purpose are well-served by the description, but missing usage guidelines and parameter context slightly reduce 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions except doc_id's inline note). The tool description does not elaborate on the object_id parameter or provide examples. With no compensation, the agent must rely on the schema's minimal info.

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's purpose: getting detailed info about a single object, with specific examples (geometry type, layer, bbox). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_list_objects (list-based) and rhino_area (single metric).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify preference over rhino_area or rhino_volume when only a specific metric is needed. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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