get_mesh_uv_area

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral nuance (is_valid_uv_channel is false when the channel has no UVs), but otherwise adds little beyond what the annotations and the naming provide.

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 tightly scoped sentences front-load the operation, and the return shape is appended compactly. The fully qualified engine symbol is mildly verbose but earns its place as provenance for the underlying query.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return shape, listing all five result fields and explaining the validity flag, and the three inputs are fully described in the schema. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it never notes units or precision of the area value.

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 lod_index, uv_channel, and static_mesh_path with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail (formats, ranges, or channel-selection semantics) 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 (compute) and an unambiguous resource (total UV-space area of all triangles in a static mesh's UV channel). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling queries such as get_mesh_volume_area, get_num_uv_islands, or get_mesh_uv_channel_count, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related UV diagnostics. The only conditional clause concerns the return flag, not invocation guidance, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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