rhino_object_select

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds valuable behavioral context: standalone mode marks objects with a user-string, bridge mode delegates to Rhino's native selection, and deselect_first (default true) clears existing selection. No contradictions with annotations, and additional details enhance transparency.

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 very concise, using only a few sentences to convey the core functionality, filter logic, and modes. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 complexity (multiple filters, two modes, default behavior), the description covers all key aspects: AND semantics, short-circuiting, standalone vs bridge, and the deselect_first default. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Each parameter in the schema has a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining filter interaction (AND semantics) and short-circuiting behavior of object_ids, which is beyond what the schema provides. Thus, a 4 is warranted.

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 'Select objects by ID and/or attribute filters,' specifying the verb and resource. It also explains filter semantics and modes, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like rhino_list_objects or rhino_object_delete, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 implies usage by detailing filter combination (AND) and short-circuiting with object_ids, and mentions standalone vs bridge modes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance, resulting in an implied usage score of 3.

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