rhino_list_blocks

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the scope 'in the document', which clarifies that block definitions across the entire document are included, but it does not disclose potential limitations like whether nested block definitions are included or the exact return format. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds limited but useful context.

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 with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the purpose. It is an excellent example of brevity.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description fully conveys the operation's intent. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers that. All information an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool is present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and there is nothing to deduct.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('all block definitions in the document'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like rhino_list_layers and rhino_list_materials by naming the exact resource type. Even without a title, the description 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 implies its usage by specifying what it lists, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools) or provide any exclusions. Given the trivial nature of the tool and its clear name, the 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.