rhino_schedule_by_layer

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful context about the return structure ('rows' plus 'totals') and the sublayer-merging behavior, but does not go deeper into filtering semantics, defaults, or field behavior. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is very short, front-loaded with the core operation, and contains no filler. The return-structure note is clearly separated and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema plus a read-only annotation, but the description still omits key selection context among scheduling siblings and does not describe the available computation fields. An agent evaluating this tool alongside rhino_schedule_by_material and rhino_schedule_by_user_text would not have enough to choose correctly or invoke it properly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% by the given signal, so the description needed to compensate. It only loosely maps to layer_filter and include_sublayers via 'optional filter' and 'sublayer merging' but says nothing about doc_id, fields, or computed quantities. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to set the arguments correctly.

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 names a concrete operation ('Aggregate objects per layer') and identifies key options ('optional filter', 'sublayer merging'), so an agent can tell this is a layer-based aggregation/scheduling tool. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like rhino_schedule_by_material or rhino_schedule_by_user_text, but the layer focus is clear.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Given closely related siblings such as rhino_schedule_by_user_text, rhino_schedule_by_material, rhino_layer_list, and rhino_layer_count, the description leaves the agent to infer when layer-based aggregation is the right choice.

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