check_mesh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation and the output list is transparent, but it never explicitly confirms safety, and it omits any cost or performance warning for the potentially expensive wall_samples sampling mode.

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 purpose and output list are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the optional-parameter behavior is grouped at the end. The genus paragraph is useful but slightly verbose, with a mild sales pitch ('far more reliable than "looks about right"') that is not strictly necessary.

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?

There is no output schema or annotation coverage, so the description must convey return content, and it does so by enumerating every metric returned plus the semantics of genus. It is nearly complete for this inspection tool; only the 'name' parameter and any cost caveats remain unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of three parameters: slices is explained as 'z heights in mm to also measure cross-section areas' and wall_samples as sampling minimum wall thickness when >0. The required 'name' parameter is left undefined, though its meaning is self-evident from context.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Geometrically inspect a model you already built') and enumerates the concrete outputs (watertightness, genus, volume, etc.), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the similar-sounding siblings look_at_mesh or describe_model, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

It gives a clear context of use: 'returns numeric evidence you can use to decide whether it came out right,' and notes the optional slices/wall_samples modes for deeper checks. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative sibling, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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