rhino_object_select

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses critical behavior: AND-combination of filters, object_ids short-circuiting, and the key implementation split between standalone mode (tagging with the rhino_mcp_selected user-string) and bridge mode (native Rhino selection). This tells the agent that selections in standalone mode are not native Rhino selection state, which is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context annotations cannot convey. 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 sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by filter semantics and mode behavior. The parenthetical explanation is slightly verbose and the mode details are partially duplicated in the nested schema description, but every sentence earns its place for agent consumption.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers mode behavior and filter semantics well. It omits the default deselect_first=true side effect (existing selection is cleared) and provides no routing guidance against the large family of rhino_sel_by_* siblings, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding to invoke this tool.

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 description adds real parameter-interaction semantics — AND combination and object_ids short-circuiting — that the input schema does not state. However, the stated schema coverage is 0% (top-level args wrapper), and while the nested $def actually documents all eight properties well, the description itself does not enumerate or clarify individual filter parameters or their constraints.

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?

"Select objects by ID and/or attribute filters" states a specific verb, resource, and mechanism, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It functionally distinguishes itself from single-criterion siblings like rhino_sel_by_color or rhino_sel_by_name by covering ID plus multiple attribute filters, though it never names these alternatives explicitly.

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 explains filter semantics and implementation modes but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many selection siblings (rhino_sel_by_type, rhino_sel_by_name, rhino_sel_layer, etc.). No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing hints are provided, so the agent must infer when this generic selection tool is appropriate.

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