rhino_object_quantity

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

The readOnlyHint: true annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the output-shape behavior (one row per object_id). It doesn't disclose edge-case behavior such as handling of missing object_ids or empty fields arrays, but for a read-only query with an output schema present, this is acceptable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the core concept first and the output structure second. Every word earns its place.

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 query tool with readOnlyHint set and an output schema available, the description covers the essential calling contract. The main missing piece is the vocabulary of valid field values, but the schema's own description ('Per-object measurements to include') plus sibling measurement tools partially mitigate this.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does add meaning by tying object_ids to output rows and fields to the requested columns, which maps the parameters to observable behavior. However, it never documents what valid field values are (e.g., area, volume, length) or what happens when fields is omitted, leaving a real gap.

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 output concept — a per-object measurement table with one row per object_id and the requested fields. This is specific enough to distinguish it from single-object tools like rhino_object_info and from single-measurement tools like rhino_area or rhino_volume, though it never names those siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With hundreds of siblings including rhino_area, rhino_volume, rhino_object_info, and rhino_count_objects, the description provides no selection criteria, exclusions, or alternative routing — the agent must infer when a per-object measurement table is appropriate.

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