rhino_tolerance_get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that it reads three tolerance types (absolute, angle, relative), which is not captured in annotations. No behavioral traits beyond this are needed for a simple read tool.

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 a single sentence of 6 words, front-loading the key action and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 (one optional parameter with default, readOnly annotation, and an output schema to document return values), the description adequately defines the scope. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for parameter documentation. However, the description adds no information about the single parameter 'args' or its sub-property 'doc_id'. The schema itself includes a description for doc_id, but the tool description fails to clarify its purpose or usage.

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 explicitly states 'Read absolute / angle / relative model tolerances', clearly identifying the verb (Read) and the resource (model tolerances) with three specific types. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'rhino_tolerance_set', which writes tolerances.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'rhino_tolerance_set'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to 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.