rhino_get_user_text

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by stating that it returns either a specific key or all key/value pairs, clarifying the scope of the operation. There is no contradiction with annotations. It does not discuss error behavior or edge cases, but the annotation coverage lowers the required bar.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key behavioral detail (specific key or all). There is no filler or redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states the operation's scope. It does not cover possible error conditions (e.g., nonexistent key), but for a read-only retrieval tool these are minor gaps. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 reported as 0%, meaning the tool description does not describe parameters. The description only hints at the 'key' parameter via 'specific key or all', but does not explain 'guid' at all. The schema itself does provide descriptions for both parameters, but per the signal, the description must compensate for low coverage. It does not, so the score is low.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'user text from an object', and explicitly mentions the return types (specific key or all key/value pairs). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like rhino_set_user_text (set operation) and rhino_get_objects (general object retrieval) because it targets user text specifically.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that rhino_get_object retrieves general properties or that rhino_set_user_text writes user text. The context is clear from the name, but the description itself provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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