rhino_list_rhinoscript_modules

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by indicating that the result is an enumeration of all available modules with function counts, which tells the agent what kind of response to expect without overspecifying.

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 two concise sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second gives its intended use case. There is no filler, repetition of the schema, or irrelevant 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?

This is a no-argument, read-only listing tool with an output schema available. The description tells an agent exactly when to call it and what it returns, leaving no practical gap for correct invocation.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description's statement about listing all modules fully satisfies any parameter expectation; this is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific action ('List all available RhinoScript modules') and a distinctive output detail ('with function counts'). It clearly positions this as a discovery tool for API areas, which helps distinguish it from sibling lookup tools like rhino_search_rhinoscript_functions and rhino_get_module_functions.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: when the agent is not sure which module contains the functions it needs. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the discovery scenario is clear enough to guide selection.

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