rhino_sel_small_objects

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 explains the basic selection criterion but omits key details such as whether the selection replaces or adds to the current Rhino selection set, what happens when no objects match, or any side effects on the document. This is a significant gap for a selection-mutating tool.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by a single parameter definition. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 helper with an output schema present, the description provides the essential invocation details. However, it misses selection-set behavior and usage context among many sibling tools, leaving a real but moderate gap in completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining tolerance as 'Maximum bounding box size threshold.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare number type and default value. It could be more precise about which bounding-box dimension is used, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 action and resource: 'Select objects smaller than the given tolerance.' It clearly identifies this as a selection-by-size tool with a bounding-box threshold. It does not explicitly differentiate it from the many sibling selection tools, so it stops 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternative selection tools such as rhino_sel_by_type, rhino_sel_all, or rhino_sel_by_name. The selection criterion is implied, but no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool are provided.

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