get_mesh_open_border_loops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying function name and a notable return field, ambiguous_topology, but omits prerequisites (mesh must be loaded) or what the ambiguity signal means in practice.

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 tight lines: a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by the return shape. No filler, no restatement of the name, and the most important information leads.

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, so the explicit Returns list ({ static_mesh_path, lod_index, open_border_loops, ambiguous_topology }) is valuable and makes the tool callable without further inference. Only minor gaps remain (error/permission behavior, mesh-loading prerequisites).

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%, with both static_mesh_path and lod_index documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes these names in the Returns line and adds no format or default nuance beyond the schema.

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 (Count) and resource (open border loops) and even disambiguates the concept as topological "holes", which distinguishes it from the sibling get_num_open_border_edges (edges vs loops). It stops short of naming a competing sibling explicitly, so no full 5.

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 implied: it queries a static mesh's topology by asset path. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to, or pointer to alternative query tools for mesh connectivity (e.g. get_mesh_is_closed, get_num_connected_islands), leaving routing to inference.

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