local_mesh_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the returned data reflects a local preview rather than an uploaded/simulated asset, which prevents the agent from misinterpreting stale or provisional values. It stops short of describing freshness or reload behavior (local_mesh_auto_reload exists).

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the read target followed by the scope caveat. No padding, though the second sentence is terse enough that its intent ('not a simulator upload') requires a little unpacking.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of indicating return content; it names 'selected item/object and displayed import log' but does not say what shape that data takes or what an empty selection looks like. For a low-complexity zero-param status read this is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics for the description to add meaning to.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (Local Mesh's selected item/object and its import log), so the agent knows exactly what state is being retrieved. The closing clause distinguishes it from the simulator-upload siblings, though it does not directly differentiate it from local_mesh_open or mesh_upload_status by name.

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 bounds the domain ('this is local preview evidence, not a simulator upload'), which implicitly tells the agent when this is the right source of truth. However, it never states when to call this vs local_mesh_open or mesh_upload_status, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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