rhino_search_rhinoscript_functions

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds complementary behavior: results are 'matching functions sorted by relevance' and the match is against keyword or description text. No side effects, rate limits, or edge behavior need disclosing for a read-only search; 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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct job: purpose, usage timing, return behavior, and query examples. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the example list is the only slightly padded part but earns its place by clarifying query phrasing.

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 search tool with an output schema present, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to phrase queries. The only gap is that the limit parameter and the nested args structure are not acknowledged in prose, but the schema carries that information adequately.

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 reported at 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It partially does by giving example queries ('loft surface', 'boolean union', 'rotate object'), which teach the expected query style, but it never mentions the limit parameter or the args wrapper, leaving that burden to the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (Search), resource (RhinoScript functions), and matching mechanism (keyword or description). The RhinoScript scope clearly differentiates it from siblings like gh_components_search and rhino_get_rhinoscript_docs, and the stated goal of finding 'correct function names and signatures' pins down its exact job.

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 an explicit when-to-use: 'Use this BEFORE writing any RhinoScript Python code to find correct function names and signatures.' This is clear context, though it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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