get_dynamic_mesh_info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds that the read targets a live dynamic mesh (runtime state, not a saved asset) and, with no output schema present, supplies the full return contract including actor_internal_name, is_closed, and is_empty. It does not cover error behavior when the actor has no dynamic mesh.

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 compact lines with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded and the return contract follows immediately, making it easy to scan without padding.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations, the description supplies the return field list that would otherwise live in an output schema, making it largely self-sufficient. Missing only edge-case behavior (actor without a dynamic mesh, invalid name handling).

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 100% with a single documented parameter ('Label or name of the target DynamicMeshActor'). The description adds no naming, path, or lookup-format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Read geometry stats off a DynamicMeshActor's live dynamic mesh.' An agent knows exactly what it does and the enumerated return fields reinforce the scope. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings that return the same data piecemeal (get_mesh_triangle_count, get_mesh_vertex_count, get_mesh_is_closed).

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. In a toolset with get_mesh_triangle_count, get_mesh_vertex_count, and get_mesh_is_closed, the agent gets no hint that this tool is the aggregate alternative to those. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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