rhino_add_leader

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does reveal that the tool enters an interactive 'mode,' which is useful, but it does not explain what happens after entering the mode, whether user interaction is required, how the mode is exited, or what side effects occur.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The core action and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with no annotations and no parameters, the description is minimal but leaves an important gap: it is unclear whether this is a blocking interactive mode, a toggle, or a command that simply starts a placement workflow. The presence of sibling tools like rhino_leader makes the lack of disambiguation more consequential.

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 there is no parameter ambiguity for the agent. The description does not need to add parameter-level semantics because the schema already fully covers an empty input contract.

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 names a specific action ('Enter ... placement mode') and a specific resource ('leader annotation'), so an agent can tell this is about placing leader annotations. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling rhino_leader, which likely refers to the same concept.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_leader, rhino_annotation_callout, or the various dimension tools. It also does not mention prerequisites or expected workflow context.

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