rhino_get_rhinoscript_docs

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-only operation. The description adds that it returns signatures, parameter descriptions, and examples, which is essentially output content rather than a deeper behavior. It doesn't disclose any side effects, permissions, or additional constraints beyond the 'MUST call before' prerequisite. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but adds minimal extra transparency.

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 three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical usage directive and then the return-value summary. Every sentence adds value, and the message is clear without being verbose.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover read-only, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it. It covers core purpose, provides mandatory context, and hints at output contents. It doesn't document the parameters precisely or mention edge cases like empty results, but those are partly handled by the schema and the simple read-only nature.

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 schema description coverage is 0% (top-level args), and the description must compensate. It only hints at the include_examples parameter via 'optional code examples' and at the topic via 'for a topic', but it doesn't describe max_functions or clarify the free-form nature of topic. The description adds sparse parameter meaning and does not make up for the schema's low coverage for an agent.

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 clearly states it retrieves comprehensive RhinoScript documentation for a topic, matching the tool name. It mentions full signatures, parameter descriptions, return values, and optional examples, which distinguishes it from generic execution tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative like rhino_search_rhinoscript_functions or rhino_get_module_functions, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'CRITICAL: You MUST call this tool before using rhino_execute_python.' This clearly states when the tool should be invoked and is a strong directive. It doesn't mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the mandatory precondition is a clear usage instruction.

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