rhino_sel_connected

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate the central side effect: the selection is changed to include connected objects. However, it does not clarify whether the existing selection is replaced or extended, nor does it define what 'connected' means in Rhino terms, which is a moderate 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It states exactly what the tool does and nothing else, making it maximally efficient for its simplicity.

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, simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, a long description is not necessary. However, the description leaves open important practical details such as the requirement of an existing selection and the exact postcondition of the selection set, so completeness is only adequate rather than thorough.

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 the schema is empty, so the description is not required to explain parameter behavior. With no parameters to document, this is effectively a baseline-4 case where no additional semantic detail is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Select') and a concrete resource ('all objects connected to the currently selected object'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable and distinguishable from other selection-oriented siblings like rhino_sel_all or rhino_sel_by_type, even without naming alternatives.

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 implies the key usage condition: there must be a currently selected object, and the tool expands the selection to connected objects. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over similar selection tools such as rhino_sel_chain, nor does it mention any exclusions or failure conditions.

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