rhino_select_objects

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

The annotations already provide the core safety profile (idempotent, not destructive, not read-only). The description adds no additional behavioral context—such as whether the current selection is replaced or augmented, or how invalid GUIDs are handled. Since annotations carry most of the burden, the description's minimal contribution brings it to a 2.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable. This is appropriately concise for a simple 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and that an output schema exists, it need not detail return values. However, key behavioral context is missing: whether the selection replaces the current selection, what happens with invalid GUIDs, and whether objects must already exist. These details are essential for an agent to use the tool correctly and are absent.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the single parameter. It does not: it simply refers to 'GUIDs' without explaining what a GUID is, that they must be valid object identifiers, or any constraints. The schema already says 'List of GUIDs to select', so the description adds no value beyond that.

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 action (select), the resource (objects in the Rhino viewport), and the mechanism (by their GUIDs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_get_objects, which retrieve information, and rhino_check_objects, which validate. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether selection replaces the current selection, whether to use it before transformations, or any prerequisites. There are no exclusions or references to other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the purpose alone.

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