rhino_tolerance_get

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

The description's 'Read' aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, so there is no contradiction. It adds detail about the specific tolerance types returned, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format, side effects, or document targeting behavior. With annotations already covering read-only safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name; every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies what is read and the annotation covers the safety profile. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that the default document is sufficient for most calls, but the schema already conveys this.

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 description does not mention the doc_id parameter, but the input schema provides a default ('active') and a description for it. Since there is only one parameter and the schema largely covers its meaning, the description adds minimal but not critical value. The 0% schema-description-coverage signal is offset by the nested schema's parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('absolute / angle / relative model tolerances'), clearly identifying the operation. It is distinguishable from the sibling tool rhino_tolerance_set, which would perform the opposite write operation.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving tolerance values, and the presence of rhino_tolerance_set as a sibling suggests the alternative for writing. However, there is no explicit 'when to use vs. when not to use' guidance or naming of the alternative tool.

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