rhino_get_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields (guid, name, type, layer, color, bounding box), which is not in the annotations and helps the agent understand the output shape. It does not introduce any contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The primary action 'List objects' is front-loaded, and the return format is compactly listed. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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 that the tool has an output schema (not shown) and annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete: it states what it returns and the filter capabilities. It does not mention the limit default or maximum, but that is present in the schema. The only minor gap is the absence of any note about pagination or sorting, but these are not critical for a basic list operation.

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 fully documents each parameter with clear descriptions ('Filter by object name (substring match)', 'Max objects to return', etc.). The tool description adds no new semantic meaning beyond echoing 'filters by type, layer, or name', which is already covered by the schema. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List objects in the scene') and clearly mentions the filter dimensions (type, layer, name). It differentiates from the singular sibling rhino_get_object by implying a plural result, and from other creation tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 conveys the basic use case (listing objects) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over rhino_get_object or rhino_scene_info. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided beyond the implicit 'list all' context, so the agent must infer the appropriate choice from the name and siblings.

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