rhino_get_object_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Return information' signals a read-only query, which is useful, but the description does not disclose what happens with no selection, whether it errors or returns an empty result, or whether it reports each object separately or aggregated.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the exact fields returned. There is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 is mostly complete: it names the selection scope and the fields. The main missing context is the no-selection edge case and how the result is structured, though the output schema can cover the structure.

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 coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter detail the description needs to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly implies the operation is driven entirely by the current Rhino selection.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource (object information) with the exact fields returned (type, layer, name, color) and scope (all currently selected objects). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like rhino_object_info or rhino_list_objects.

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 phrase 'for all currently selected objects' implies when to call it: after making a selection when property details are needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives, no caveats about empty selections, and no mention of a prerequisite to select objects first.

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