rhino_sel_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It discloses the selection action but omits important behavior: whether selection replaces or adds to the current selection, whether matching is case-sensitive or supports wildcards, and how locked/hidden objects are treated. For a selection tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 sentence with no filler. The action and criterion are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 one-parameter selection tool this is minimally adequate, but the missing behavioral details (replacement semantics, matching rules) leave an agent uncertain about side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still under-specifies how the selection is applied.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only restates that the parameter is the name attribute. It does not clarify matching semantics, format of the name string, or whether multiple names can be supplied, so the agent receives little additional meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 clearly states a specific operation ('Select objects') and the criterion ('name attribute'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling selection tools like rhino_sel_by_color and rhino_sel_by_type, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 intended use is implied: use this when objects should be selected based on their name. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over the many sibling selection tools, nor does it describe conditions such as exact matching, partial matching, or wildcard behavior.

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