rhino_count_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output type and grouping but does not disclose whether hidden/locked objects are included, whether blocks are counted as single objects, or what happens with an empty document. The read-only nature is implied but not guaranteed.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, includes the key scope qualifier ('all objects in the document'), and specifies the output breakdown. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is counted and how results are grouped. Minor caveats about visibility filters or empty documents are absent, but the tool's simplicity limits the need for more. The output schema handles return structure details.

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 and the schema covers 100% of nothing. With no inputs to document, the description needs to add little; the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 a count'), a resource ('all objects in the document'), and the output breakdown ('by geometry type'). This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like rhino_list_objects, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_list_objects, rhino_object_quantity, or rhino_layer_count. There is no context about selection scope, document state, or exclusions.

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