get_procedural_mesh_section_visible

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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information by spelling out the returned shape (actor_label, section_index, visible), which is valuable since no output schema exists.

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 sentences with zero filler, purpose front-loaded, and the return contract compactly stated. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-value read on a procedural mesh, the description gives the purpose and the return shape, which compensates for the missing output schema. It omits any note about failure when the section index does not exist, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is absent.

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 all three parameters (actor_label, section_index, component_index) are already documented at the schema level. The description's phrase 'a single section' hints that one section_index is targeted but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 precise resource ('the visibility flag of a single section on a procedural mesh component'), making the operation unmistakable. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is distinguished from (set_procedural_mesh_section_visible), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 read-vs-write contrast with the sibling set_procedural_mesh_section_visible is only implied by the verb 'read'; the description never states when to use this tool rather than get_procedural_mesh_section_data or get_procedural_mesh_info. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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