get_mesh_connected_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return shape and the underlying function it invokes, which is modest extra value; it does not discuss cost, limits, or when the count can fail (e.g. invalid LOD). With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and the return shape appended. The namespaced C++ function reference is somewhat wasteful but not harmful, and there is no filler.

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 simple read-only count over a static mesh with only two well-documented parameters and full annotation coverage, the description is complete. It even states the return fields, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, so both static_mesh_path and lod_index are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

Specific verb (count) plus resource (topologically separate connected components / islands) scoped to a static mesh, using the underlying UGeometryScript function name for precision. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling get_num_connected_islands, which an agent could easily confuse.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The phrase 'in a static mesh' implicitly separates it from dynamic-mesh siblings, but the agent is not told why it would pick this over get_num_connected_islands or get_mesh_components_detail.

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