rhino_viewport_preview

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

Annotations are minimal (only readOnlyHint=false), so the description carries most of the burden. It discloses that non-target objects are 'ghosted (default) or hidden during the capture and restored afterwards' and notes 'Bridge only,' which is genuine behavioral context. However, it omits the zoom_to_selection camera side effect and any persistent state changes.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place. The purpose statement is front-loaded, the ghost/hide-restore behavior is compactly explained, and the use case plus Bridge-only constraint add necessary context without bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the filtering behavior, default ghosting, restoration, and the intended verification-flow usage. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with unfiltered capture tools and clarifying what 'Bridge only' implies, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema itself already provides descriptions for path, doc_id, layers, ghost_others, selection_ids, and zoom_to_selection, so the structured data does the heavy lifting. The description adds the spotlight/ghost conceptual framing and confirms the ghosting default, but adds little meaning beyond what the schema supplies.

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 opens with a specific verb and scope: 'Capture a viewport preview restricted to a selection or layer set.' The 'Spotlights selection_ids and/or objects on layers' sentence makes the filtering behavior unmistakable, clearly distinguishing this from plain capture siblings like rhino_viewport_image, rhino_screenshot, and rhino_view_capture_to_file.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use context: 'Useful for multi-step LLM verification flows where only the recently added objects need to be visualised.' It does not name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, stopping short of full routing guidance but providing clear context.

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