rhino_check_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it checks for bad geometry and naked edges, but that is more about function than behavior. It does not disclose return format or side effects, but the annotations reduce the burden. It 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 short sentences with no redundancy. The action is stated first, and the scope is front-loaded. It is efficient and focused.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage: how to scope the check. It does not explain the return structure, but the output schema handles that. It is adequate without being exhaustive.

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?

The description explains the guids parameter: provide specific GUIDs or leave empty to check all objects. This directly compensates for the reported 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies optionality and scope, though it does not detail the format (e.g., array of strings), which is in the schema.

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 checks objects for validity, bad geometry, naked edges, and common problems, with an optional scope (specific GUIDs or whole scene). It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from siblings like rhino_get_naked_edges or rhino_check_mesh, which overlap in scope.

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 only explains how to scope the check (specific GUIDs or empty for all), but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_get_naked_edges or rhino_check_mesh. There is no mention of exclusions or comparison with siblings.

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