rhino_cmd_get_user_text

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a read operation on selected objects, but it fails to explain whether the current Rhino selection is required, what happens with multiple or no selected objects, or how missing keys are handled.

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 very brief and front-loads the core action. The Args line is minimal and mostly redundant with the schema, but the overall length is appropriate for the small tool surface.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it misses the key selection dependency and sibling-tool context that would help an agent decide whether this tool is the right getter, leaving the definition merely adequate rather than complete.

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, but it merely repeats the parameter name and says 'key: Attribute key name.' This adds no real meaning beyond the string field already visible in the input schema, and it offers no constraints, examples, or context for valid key values.

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 concrete action ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('custom user text value'), and a scope ('from selected objects'). It is recognizable as a getter, but it does not differentiate it from the near-identical sibling rhino_get_user_text, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to prefer this tool over rhino_get_user_text, rhino_get_document_text, or rhino_set_user_text. The description merely states the operation and leaves all selection-vs-alternative decisions implicit.

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