get_mesh_triangle_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantics beyond the annotations by noting the count is post-copy canonical and by exposing that triangle ID gaps can exist (has_triangle_id_gaps), which hints at non-contiguous IDs.

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?

The leading sentence is front-loaded and clear, and the explicit 'Returns:' line compensates for the absent output schema. However, the fully-qualified C++ symbol (UGeometryScriptLibrary_MeshQueryFunctions::GetNumTriangleIDs) is implementation detail that consumes space without helping selection.

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 two-parameter read query with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly complete: parameters are documented in the schema and the 'Returns:' clause enumerates the output fields in the absence of an output schema. It could be fuller only by cross-referencing sibling count tools.

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 the required static_mesh_path and the optional lod_index (default 0) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 ('Count the triangles in a static mesh') and even names the underlying query function, so the agent knows exactly what is computed. It clarifies the count is canonical after copy-from-asset and that GetTriangleCount == NumTriangleIDs, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_mesh_vertex_count or get_dynamic_mesh_info.

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 guidance, no when-not, and no routing to alternative sibling tools. The mention that this is the canonical count 'after copy-from-asset' gives passive context but does not tell an agent which tool to pick over another.

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