rhino_get_module_functions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the result includes signatures, which is useful return-value context, but it does not describe output structure or edge cases. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite workflow is stated efficiently.

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 simple read-only introspection tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential flow: list modules first, then browse a module's API. It could optionally mention that this is the companion to the module-listing tool, but nothing critical is missing.

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 description does not explicitly document module_name, but it implies the parameter by saying 'specific RhinoScript module' and tells the agent to use rhino_list_rhinoscript_modules() to discover valid values. The nested schema also provides an example ('curve', 'surface', 'mesh'), so the parameter is reasonably covered despite low schema-description coverage.

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 and resource: 'Get all functions in a specific RhinoScript module with signatures.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_list_rhinoscript_modules (which lists modules) and rhino_search_rhinoscript_functions (which searches functions).

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 gives an explicit workflow: call rhino_list_rhinoscript_modules() first to see available modules, then call this tool to browse a module's API. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' instructions against alternatives like search_rhinoscript_functions, but the intended usage is clear.

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