rhino_open

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries some burden for explaining side effects. It mentions binding to a doc_id but does not disclose whether opening replaces the current document, whether unsaved changes could be lost, or what happens if the file is invalid or already bound.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to the core action and binding behavior.

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 an operation that can mutate the active Rhino document state, the description is too thin. It fails to explain the doc_id lifecycle, potential replacement of the current document, or how this tool differs from rhino_open_file. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but not with these contextual risks.

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 names the file type (.3dm) and the doc_id binding concept, which partially aligns with the schema parameters. However, it does not explain the required path parameter or the auto-generation of doc_id beyond what the input schema already states. The schema descriptions do most of the work.

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 clearly states the action ('Open a .3dm file') and the binding side effect ('bind it to a doc_id'). It identifies the specific resource type and the doc_id association, though it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling rhino_open_file.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_open_file, rhino_import, or gh_open_file. There are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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