rhino_sel_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the core action plainly, but does not disclose whether the selection replaces or appends to the current selection, whether hidden or locked objects are included, or that invoking it mutates selection state which affects subsequent operations. For a zero-parameter tool the basic behavior is covered, but the semantic edge cases are left open.

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?

A single seven-word sentence that front-loads the action verb and scopes the target. Every word earns its place, and no elaboration would improve it for a parameterless utility.

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?

Given the zero-parameter signature, the simple scope of the operation, and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the lack of detail on selection semantics (whether prior selections are cleared and how hidden/locked objects are treated), which could affect an agent's expectations in a multi-step workflow.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per baseline, a 0-parameter tool scores 4 because nothing is left undocumented. No deduction is warranted since there is literally nothing a description could add about parameters.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Select all objects in the document.' The scope qualifier 'all objects' clearly differentiates it from the many selection siblings like rhino_sel_by_type, rhino_sel_by_color, and rhino_object_select without needing to name them. It falls short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly name any sibling it is not.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains roughly forty selection-related tools (rhino_sel_by_type, rhino_sel_by_name, rhino_sel_layer, rhino_sel_none, rhino_sel_invert, rhino_object_select), yet the description gives no exclusions, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer routing entirely from naming conventions.

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