get_mesh_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it disclose prerequisites such as the object being a mesh or error behavior for invalid object names. This leaves the agent to infer safety and preconditions.

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 sentence with a clear list of outputs. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and contains no fluff. The minor line break is not an issue. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the list format is somewhat long and could be more compact, but it is still efficient.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists many of the returned statistics, giving some idea of what to expect. However, it omits the meaning of object_name, whether the input must be a mesh, and the format/units of the returned values. With no annotations and no output schema, these gaps make it incomplete for fully informed 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 has one parameter (object_name) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention object_name at all, leaving the agent to guess whether it expects a mesh object name, a scene object name, or something else. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('mesh statistics') and enumerates the exact outputs: vertex/edge/face counts, triangle count, ngon count, volume, surface area, and bounding box dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_mesh_quality, which focus on quality rather than raw counts.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a use case (need mesh statistics) but does not mention scenarios where a different tool like analyze_mesh_quality or get_object_info would be more appropriate, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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