rhino_sel_duplicates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Select duplicate objects' and does not disclose whether the selection replaces the current selection, whether duplicates are determined by geometry and location, or whether the document is modified. The core behavior is stated, but critical behavioral details are missing.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. It could be slightly richer with behavioral context, but as a one-line definition it is appropriately compact.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate for invocation. However, it does not explain what qualifies as a duplicate object or how the selection set is affected, which are meaningful gaps for an AI agent deciding whether to use this tool among many similar selection tools.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 and resource: 'Select duplicate objects.' This is clear and distinguishes this tool from sibling selection-related commands by the unique 'duplicate' criterion. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other rhino_sel_* tools or elaborate on what counts as a duplicate.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternative selection tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of exclusions or context. The description only states the action itself, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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