get_num_connected_islands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the return payload keys (actor_name, num_connected_islands), which is valuable since no output schema exists, though it says nothing about failure modes or mesh-state requirements.

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: the purpose first, then the return contract. Nothing is wasted and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return field names, which is what the agent most needs. It is thin on edge cases (empty mesh, non-dense mesh, invalid actor_name) but otherwise complete for a low-complexity tool.

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% on the single actor_name parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states, only echoing actor_name in the return shape.

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 and resource ('Get the number of separate connected components in the mesh') and even names the underlying operation it aliases. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling get_mesh_connected_components, which an agent could easily confuse with this count-returning variant.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. which mesh types are supported), and no pointer to alternatives such as get_mesh_connected_components when the agent actually needs the component list rather than the count.

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