get_mesh_volume_area_center

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned fields (acting as a proxy output schema) and citing the backing engine function, though it omits any cost/precondition notes.

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 statements with the operation front-loaded and the return shape clearly separated. The full C++ symbol path is arguably traceability noise for an agent, but it costs little and the whole thing is well within budget.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's explicit field list (including is_closed) is essential and present. Combined with annotations that cover the safety profile, the definition is nearly complete for a simple two-parameter read tool; only error/precondition behavior is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%: lod_index's default-0 behavior and static_mesh_path's role as a content path are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details 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?

States a specific verb (read) and enumerates the exact resources returned (surface area, signed volume, center-of-mass) for a static mesh, which is precise and actionable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_mesh_volume_area (dynamic mesh), leaving that discrimination to the name itself.

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?

The description only says what it does; it gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no reference to the closely related siblings (get_mesh_volume_area, get_mesh_is_closed). An agent gets no help deciding between this and adjacent mesh-query tools.

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