analyze_mesh_quality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the output: a structured defect report with counts and affected element indices. The verb 'analyze' implies a non-destructive read operation, and no side effects are mentioned. It does not explicitly state that the mesh is not modified, but the return-oriented phrasing makes this implicit. This is sufficient for a simple analysis 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and defect enumeration, followed by the return format. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, enumerates what defects are checked, and describes the return value (counts and indices). With no output schema, this is sufficient. It does not mention edge cases like invalid object names or non-mesh objects, but those are minor gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 one parameter (object_name) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter directly, but the phrase 'Analyze mesh' implies that object_name refers to a mesh, adding a semantic type beyond the raw schema. This partially compensates for the coverage gap, though it could be more explicit.

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 explicitly names the resource (mesh), the action (analyze for defects), and enumerates specific defect types (non-manifold edges, loose vertices, zero-area faces, duplicate vertices, wire edges, twisted faces). This clearly distinguishes it from general mesh statistics or production readiness checks, and from siblings like find_duplicates which target a single defect type.

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 implies a clear use case: identify and report mesh defects. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as fix_mesh_defects, find_duplicates, or check_production_readiness, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but not fully differentiated.

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