rhino_sel_chain

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does state that the tool selects a connected chain based on the current selection, which is meaningful. But it does not disclose whether the selection is replaced or extended, how branching is handled, or what happens if the current selection is empty or contains non-curves.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the operation and clearly states the input condition without wasting tokens.

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 zero-parameter selection tool with an output schema available, the description is mostly complete: it names the action, the object type, and the selection seed. It could be more complete by explaining what 'chain' means geometrically and how the current selection is modified, but the low complexity makes the one-liner nearly sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so there are no parameter details needed. The description still adds useful context by indicating the implicit state input ('current selection seed'), matching the baseline 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 clearly identifies the verb ('Select'), the resource ('a chain of connected curves'), and the input ('current selection seed'). It is specific enough to understand the core operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling rhino_sel_connected, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'from the current selection seed' provides clear context: the tool should be used when there is an existing selected curve to start from. However, it offers no exclusions or explicit comparison to alternative selection tools like rhino_sel_connected or rhino_sel_by_type.

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