get_mesh_volume_area

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that volume is *signed* and that the call is a query function, but it says nothing about cost, requiring a valid path, or behavior on open (non-closed) meshes.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Uses some space on the fully-qualified function name, which is marginally useful but not essential.

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 spelling out the returned fields (static_mesh_path, lod_index, surface_area, volume, is_closed) is genuinely valuable. The remaining gap is the absence of any differentiation from get_mesh_volume_area_center for an agent choosing between them.

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 the schema already documents static_mesh_path and lod_index, making baseline 3 appropriate. The description mentions lod_index only in the return shape and adds no semantics 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 ('Read'), resource ('surface area and signed volume of a static mesh'), and even the underlying engine function. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_mesh_volume_area_center, leaving an agent to guess which volume/area query to call.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related siblings (get_mesh_volume_area_center, get_mesh_is_closed, get_mesh_uv_area). The agent must infer context entirely.

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