Check whether triangle IDs for a mesh actor are dense with no gaps after deletions, returning the actor name and is_dense flag.
Return true if the mesh's triangle IDs are dense (no gaps after deletions).
Returns: { actor_name, is_dense }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor_name | Yes | DynamicMeshActor name (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real semantic value by defining what 'dense' means ('no gaps after deletions') and by disclosing the return shape ({ actor_name, is_dense }), which goes beyond the structured fields.
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, zero waste, with the core predicate front-loaded and the return shape appended. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return object, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple boolean predicate with one required parameter, the description is complete; only explicit usage routing is missing.
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 100% and the schema documents actor_name as a required DynamicMeshActor name. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource (return whether mesh triangle IDs are dense) and adds a distinguishing qualifier, 'no gaps after deletions,' that separates it from other mesh-query siblings. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 through the phrase 'after deletions,' suggesting a check performed post-edit. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to a related sibling like compact_mesh or get_mesh_triangle_count.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.