get_uv_health_report

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context: it enumerates the returned metrics and, crucially, warns that approx_unique_islands counts rounded UV positions rather than islands and that per-triangle counters remain 0 when per_triangle_iteration_error is set. Those caveats prevent misreading of results, which is exactly the value a description should add on top of annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by a compact returns block. Every sentence carries information, and the important caveat about approx_unique_islands appears inline where it is needed. Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the exact return field set plus two non-obvious semantics. What remains thin is the meaning of derived metrics such as in_unit_square_triangle_ratio and the criteria behind is_lightmap_hard_failing, but an agent has enough to call the tool and interpret its output.

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% and all three parameters (mesh_path, lod_index, uv_channel, with defaults) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond it; its extra text is about output, not inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource+scope: a read-only diagnostic summary for one UV channel of a static mesh, enumerating the metrics produced (counts, lightmap status, unit-square ratio, overlaps, unique UVs). The purpose is unmistakable, though it never names or distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like get_static_mesh_lightmap, get_num_uv_islands, or get_mesh_uv_area.

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-only diagnostic summary' framing implies the situation in which to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. mesh must be loaded/saved), and no routing away from the narrower UV/lightmap siblings. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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