rhino_scene_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds transparency about the specific data returned, which is useful for an agent setting expectations. No contradictions; the description aligns with the read-only nature.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Get an overview'), followed by a concise list of the returned data. There is zero waste; every element adds value and is immediately scannable by an agent.

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 has no parameters and an output schema already exists to define the return type, the description is complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect. It covers the essential information return aspects without needing to repeat the output schema.

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 zero parameters, which warrants a baseline of 4 per the rubric. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none, and the schema confirms this. It accurately reflects the no-input nature without superfluous detail.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get an overview') and a specific resource (current Rhino document), and enumerates the exact information it returns (filename, unit system, tolerances, object count by type, layers, active view). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_get_objects (specific object details) or rhino_list_layers (layer list only).

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 it is for a high-level summary of the entire document, which implies when an agent should use it (when needing overall context) versus more specialized tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for effective selection among the many siblings.

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