get_procedural_mesh_section_data

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 behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that data is read back per-section and that a negative or missing section is an error condition. It does not mention pagination or large-mesh limits.

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 plus a return-shape line. The purpose is front-loaded and the returns list earns its place since there is no output schema. No wasted 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the full return object (actor_label through visible). Combined with the error behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 actor_label, section_index (>= 0), and component_index are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the single-section scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 back') and resource ('raw geometry of a single procedural mesh section') and enumerates exactly which geometry channels are returned. An agent can distinguish it from get_procedural_mesh_info (whole-mesh info) and get_procedural_mesh_section_visible (visibility) without opening any 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?

Usage context is implied by 'single procedural mesh section' and the error note on negative/missing sections, but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance against siblings like get_procedural_mesh_info or get_procedural_mesh_section_visible. It is adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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