rhino_gh_get_outputs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context that it reads 'current' values, implying dynamic state, and 'active' definition, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior when no definition is loaded or whether it returns all outputs, relying on the output schema. This is acceptable but not rich.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the context ('active Grasshopper definition') is included efficiently. Ideal for a zero-parameter 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?

With 0 parameters, simple read operation, and an existing output schema (which presumably specifies return values), the description covers the essential purpose. The only minor gap is error conditions (e.g., no active definition), but given the output schema and annotations, this is not a significant omission. Overall complete for its simplicity.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description need not add parameter details. It correctly focuses on behavior rather than params, so no deduction is warranted.

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 uses a clear verb 'read' with a specific resource 'current output values' and context 'active Grasshopper definition'. It distinguishes itself from GH siblings like rhino_gh_set_slider (which modifies) and rhino_gh_run_script (which executes), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 it is the tool for reading GH outputs, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., set_slider, run_script) or when not to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring an active GH definition, though 'active' hints at that. Guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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