mesh_upload_status

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious traits: the readback is non-atomic and quote freshness and file bytes are unverified. That is real caveat information an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema. It stops short of saying what happens when no importer is open.

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 sentences, zero waste: the returned field list comes first, then the two behavioral caveats. Every clause carries information the agent 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it enumerates the returned fields plus their reliability limits. It is nearly complete; it omits the shape of the result and the behavior when no importer dialog exists.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a nullary read against the current importer state, and no parameter documentation is required.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Read importer LOD files/counts, physics, dimensions, warnings, weights, displayed fee and visibility' tells the agent exactly what state is inspected. 'Does not calculate or upload' implicitly separates it from mesh_upload_open. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: checking pre-upload importer state, and the note that it 'does not calculate or upload' hints you need a different tool for those actions. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative such as mesh_upload_open or local_mesh_status.

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