rhino_launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the blocking wait behavior and configurable wait time. However, it omits important operational behaviors: what happens on timeout, whether the call is idempotent when Rhino is already launched, and what shape a failure takes.

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 docstring is well-structured: a front-loaded one-line summary, then Args, then Returns. The phantom controller entry and the generic "Dict with launch result" line add minor noise, but the overall format is clean and scannable for a simple tool.

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 tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the core action and the single real parameter adequately. Key gaps remain: failure/timeout behavior, idempotency when Rhino is already running, and the confusing controller reference not present in the schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does explain wait_seconds meaningfully ("Seconds to wait for Rhino to start (default 12)"), adding value beyond the schema's bare title and default. However, it documents a "controller: RhinoController instance" argument that does not appear in the schema — a stale or misleading reference that could cause an agent to supply an invalid parameter and undermines reliability.

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 opening sentence "Launch Rhino and wait for it to become ready" states a specific verb (launch), a specific resource (the Rhino application), and the expected outcome state (becomes ready). Among the large sibling list, no other tool launches the application itself — rhino_open/rhino_open_file operate on documents, not the application — so it is clearly distinguishable without inspecting the schema.

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 guidance on when to call this tool, whether it must precede other Rhino operations, or what happens if Rhino is already running. The "wait for it to become ready" phrasing implies it is a session-setup step, but no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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