rhino_get_user_text

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe, read-only nature. The description adds the useful semantic context that this reads per-object key-value metadata, but does not disclose other behavioral details such as all-or-nothing key retrieval or active-document behavior. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with a clear schema, readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the absence of usage guidance and parameter compensation, but the structured fields carry most of the remaining burden.

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%, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining object_id, key, or doc_id. While the schema itself has descriptions for key and doc_id, the description adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema for invocation details.

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 ('Read') and identifies the exact resource: key-value user text metadata attached to an object. This clearly differentiates it from related tools like rhino_set_user_text (write) and rhino_get_document_text (document-level rather than object-level).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is only implied from the verb and resource name, so an agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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