mesh_gradients_inspect

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description usefully adds that mesh gradient editing is unsupported and that patch geometry is never rewritten, which tells the agent this is inspection-only with no fidelity side effects. It stops short of describing pagination, cost, or scope limits beyond that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating what is returned before the caveat. The trailing "without exposing unsupported editing or rewriting their patch geometry" clause is slightly dense but still earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation, and the read-only nature is covered. However, with three undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to know how to scope the call.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents none of the three parameters (path, workspaceId, limit) beyond raw types. The description compensates with nothing — no mention of what path refers to, that workspaceId is required, or how limit bounds the listing.

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 names a specific verb ("Lists") and resource ("preserved SVG mesh gradients") plus the return payload concept ("structural counts"). It implicitly separates itself from the mutation-oriented sibling gradients_manage by stressing inspection only, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 only implied: the clause about not exposing unsupported editing signals that this is a read-only inspection tool and not the path for modifying mesh gradients. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling such as gradients_manage.

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