rhino_system_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a read-only retrieval operation ('Retrieve') and that it returns a Dict, which covers the core behavior. However, it does not describe what data the system info contains, whether a live Rhino session is required, or any failure modes — though for a non-destructive info query the risk profile is low.

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 core sentence is concise and front-loaded. But the Args block referencing a controller parameter is dead weight that contradicts the actual schema, and 'Dict with system info output' is a vague filler line that conveys almost nothing. The description is compact but not every sentence earns its place.

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?

Complexity is low: zero parameters and an output schema exists, so the return shape is covered elsewhere. Still, the description leaves a notable gap in explaining what 'system information' encompasses and when the agent should prefer this tool over sibling info queries like rhino_status or rhino_document_summary. It is minimally adequate but thin.

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 0 parameters, which normally warrants a baseline of 4 since no parameter documentation is needed. However, the description's Args section states 'controller: RhinoController instance,' which implies an argument that does not exist in the schema. This mismatch could mislead an agent into thinking a controller must be supplied or that the schema is incomplete.

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: 'Retrieve Rhino system information.' This is clear and unambiguous on its own. However, it does not differentiate from sibling information tools like rhino_status, rhino_document_summary, or rhino_document_properties, leaving the agent to guess what 'system information' covers versus those 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as rhino_status, rhino_document_summary, and rhino_document_properties overlap in the informational space, but the description offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions directing an agent to one tool over another. The agent must infer appropriateness from the tool name alone.

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