rhino_schedule_by_user_text

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail: objects are grouped by a user_text key and the result is schedule-like. It does not describe output shape or document filtering, but those are partially covered by the output schema and 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 compact: one core behavior sentence followed by a focused example sentence. There is no filler, and the key semantics are front-loaded before the illustrative use cases.

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 read-only aggregation tool with an output schema and simple parameters, this description is largely sufficient. It explains what the tool does and gives realistic BIM use cases. The main gap is not clarifying the distinction from dedicated siblings like rhino_schedule_by_material, and fields remains ambiguous.

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 valuable meaning for group_key through concrete examples, which goes beyond the schema's generic "user_text key to group by." However, it says nothing about the fields, value_filter, or doc_id parameters, and the schema itself leaves fields completely undescribed, so parameter coverage is incomplete.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Aggregate objects grouping by user_text[group_key] value." It clearly describes a schedule/aggregation operation keyed on arbitrary user_text, which distinguishes it from sibling schedule tools like rhino_schedule_by_layer and rhino_schedule_by_material. The BIM examples further reinforce exactly what the tool produces.

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 gives clear context: it is useful for BIM-style schedules, with concrete group_key examples like assembly_type for wall/window schedules and material for a BOM. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as rhino_schedule_by_material, but the intended usage is clearly conveyed.

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