rhino_schedule_by_material

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

Annotations confirm readOnlyHint=true. The description adds detail about handling default material (-1) in standalone mode and render content lookup in bridge mode. However, no mention of return format, pagination, or permissions, which is acceptable given annotations.

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?

Description is short and structured into two clear sections. Each sentence adds value, though the second paragraph could be slightly rephrased for clarity. No unnecessary 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?

Output schema exists, so return values don't need description. However, with 0% schema coverage, the description should provide parameter guidance. It is partially complete but lacks explanation of doc_id and fields, which are critical for correct invocation.

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%, so description must compensate. It mentions material name grouping but fails to explain the two parameters (doc_id, fields) or their roles. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's minimal definitions.

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 aggregates objects grouped by assigned material name, with specific modes: standalone and bridge. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rhino_schedule_by_layer by its focus on material assignment.

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 explains behavior in standalone vs bridge mode, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., rhino_schedule_by_layer, rhino_schedule_by_user_text). Usage context is implied but not directive.

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