rhino_explode

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not required to restate that the operation modifies the model. It adds minimal context beyond the annotation—mainly that the result is 'individual components.' It does not mention whether the original compound objects are deleted or retained, but this is not a contradiction and the annotation covers the destructive nature. Thus a mid-range score is appropriate.

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, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome. This is appropriately concise for a straightforward tool.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema (though not shown), so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks any usage guidance regarding when to prefer this tool over siblings and does not note any side effects beyond the destructive annotation. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is acceptable but not complete—usage direction is a notable gap.

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 input schema already provides a description for the 'guids' parameter ('GUIDs of objects to explode'), so the tool description adds no additional meaning. With schema coverage effectively 100% for the single parameter, the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not provide extra syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb ('Explode') and a clear resource ('compound objects') with the outcome ('into individual components'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as rhino_explode_block or rhino_ungroup, so it scores slightly below the top.

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 like rhino_explode_block or rhino_ungroup. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as selection requirements or differences between exploding blocks versus other compound objects. An agent receives no direction on choosing among the sibling tools.

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