rhino_list_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it specifies the pagination contract ({total, offset, limit, returned, has_more}) and the async non-blocking execution during the bridge round-trip. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each earning its place: the lead states the purpose, the second gives the pagination iteration contract, and the third explains the async behavior. Slightly more prose than strictly necessary, but there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 read-only listing tool, the description covers the core behavior, filter semantics, pagination iteration, and an operational caveat (async non-blocking). The output schema and per-parameter descriptions fill the remaining gaps, so nothing an agent needs to call or iterate over this tool 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?

Although the context signal reports 0% coverage, the visible schema actually documents every parameter (kind, layer, limit, offset, doc_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds order-of-operations meaning — filters apply before limit/offset — and surfaces the pagination block the caller must parse. doc_id is left to the schema, which is acceptable given its description and 'active' default.

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, 'List objects in the document with optional layer/type filter,' names a specific verb, resource, and scope, and the filter mechanism distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_layer_list (lists layers) and rhino_object_info (details one object). It is unambiguous as a read/query operation with no tautology or vagueness.

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 clear operational context for iterating ('the caller can iterate without guessing') and states that filters apply before limit/offset, but it never names an alternative or says when not to use this tool. Among the many sibling query/list tools, no routing guidance is offered. This is implied usage rather than explicit when/when-not instruction.

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