get_procedural_mesh_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact return structure (actor_label, num_sections, collision flags, sections array), which is not captured by any output schema.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the return shape follows immediately. The Returns block is dense but every field listed is informative for a tool with no output schema. No filler text.

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 read-only, two-parameter info tool, the definition is nearly complete: purpose, return shape, and parameter defaults are all available, and annotations cover safety characteristics. The only omission is routing guidance to the section-detail sibling, which is minor.

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 both actor_label ('Editor label of the actor carrying the PMC') and component_index (0-based, defaults to 0). The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Read summary info... for a procedural mesh component on a named actor') and enumerates the exact fields returned (section count, collision flags, per-section vertex/triangle counts). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_procedural_mesh_section_data, but the word 'summary' vs. section-level detail is a reasonable implicit distinction.

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 or when-not guidance, and no siblings are named as alternatives. However, the tool is a pure read-info operation whose usage is implied by its name and stated scope, so the minimum viable bar is met without going further.

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