rhino_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Report... availability' and 'secondary evidence', which vaguely suggests a read-only lookup, but does not explicitly state whether it is destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. This is insufficient.

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 short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of clarity and completeness. It earns a baseline score for brevity, but the conciseness does not serve the agent's needs.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret 'availability', or the relationship between parameters. The output schema may provide return-type details, but the description still leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 3 parameters (contract, artifact_hash, contract_hash) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention or explain any parameter, so the agent learns nothing beyond the schema's bare names and types. For a tool with required parameters, this is a critical gap.

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?

Description states 'Report Rhino preview availability as secondary evidence only', but the resource is vague. 'Rhino preview' and 'secondary evidence' are undefined, making it hard for an agent to determine what exactly the tool retrieves. Compared to siblings like design_contract_draft or drawing_compare, the purpose is not clearly distinguished.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'secondary evidence only' hints at a specific role, but it is not elaborated, so the agent receives no practical usage context or exclusions.

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