rhino_schedule_by_user_text

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description supports by stating 'Aggregate objects' (a read operation). Description adds context about grouping behavior but does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences with a multi-line example, no fluff. The main action is front-loaded ('Aggregate objects grouping by...'). Every sentence adds unique value.

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 an output schema exists (so return format is documented elsewhere), the description sufficiently explains the grouping behavior and provides examples. It does not mention that objects must have user_text attributes, but that is implied by 'user_text[group_key]'.

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?

Although the input schema already describes parameters, the description adds meaning by explaining that group_key refers to user_text fields and providing real-world examples ('assembly_type', 'material'), which helps the agent understand the parameter's role.

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?

Description clearly states it aggregates objects by a user_text group_key value. Provides explicit examples (wall/window schedule, material BOM) that distinguish it from sibling tools like schedule_by_layer or schedule_by_material.

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?

Description gives concrete use cases (BIM-style schedules with specific group_key values), implying when to use it. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the examples provide sufficient guidance.

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