rhino_get_object

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), lowering the burden. The description adds what-data context via the returned field list, but discloses nothing about behavior on invalid/unknown GUIDs or duplicate matches. This is consistent with annotations and adds modest value, no more.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action verb first, followed by a tightly packed list of returned data fields. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema documenting the return structure and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The only real gaps are explicit sibling differentiation and unknown-GUID behavior, which are minor at this complexity level.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must carry meaning for the single guid parameter — and it partially does, by stating the object is retrieved 'by GUID'. However, it adds no format or lookup-failure detail beyond the schema's own 'Object GUID (unique identifier in Rhino)' comment, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('get detailed information about a specific object by GUID') and enumerates the returned data (geometry type, dimensions, area, volume, edge info, material, user data). The singular 'specific object by GUID' implies differentiation from the plural rhino_get_objects, but it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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 implies when to use it — anytime a single object's full detail is needed — but gives no explicit guidance on alternatives such as the specialized rhino_get_area, rhino_get_volume, rhino_get_length, or rhino_get_user_text, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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