rhino_block_instance_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only count but does not state what happens for an unknown block name (error vs. 0), whether the count includes nested instances, or whether name matching is case-sensitive. For any counting tool these edge behaviors materially affect interpretation of results.

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 appropriately short with the primary purpose front-loaded in a single clear sentence. The docstring-style 'Args:' line introduces minor formatting noise, but nothing wasteful or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format documentation is not the description's responsibility. The tool is structurally simple with one required parameter, but the description omits edge-case behavior (missing block, nested instances) and does not distinguish it from closely related counting/list sibling tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 must compensate. It does by clarifying the single parameter ('name: Block definition name'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema entry that only declares a required string. The explanation is serviceable but sparse.

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 ('Return') and resource ('number of instances of a specific block definition'), making the tool's core function clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools with similar purposes such as rhino_block_list, rhino_count_objects, rhino_object_quantity, or rhino_bridge_list_instances, so an agent cannot easily tell which counting tool fits.

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, no conditions, and no exclusions. The description merely restates what the tool does without any contextual routing, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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