rhino_sel_bad_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Select' but does not state whether the command replaces the current selection, adds to it, what happens when no bad objects exist, or what criteria define 'geometrically invalid' in Rhino. This leaves meaningful behavioral traits unknown.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no-input selection tool, the description is minimally adequate and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, it omits practical context such as selection-state behavior, error conditions, and what 'bad' means, which an agent would need to confidently invoke and interpret the tool in a real 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, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The schema already exhaustively covers the empty input, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 'Select' and a concrete target: 'geometrically invalid (bad) objects.' It clearly communicates the tool's resource and action, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similar-sounding sibling rhino_check_bad_objects or other rhino_sel_* selection tools.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you want to select invalid geometry. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives like rhino_check_bad_objects, how it relates to selection cleanup workflows, or whether it should be paired with a subsequent operation such as deletion or repair.

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