list_uv_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds editor-specific context ('no MarkDirty / no save'), telling the agent the package won't be dirtied. It does not address rate limits or error behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one terse sentence, followed by a compact returns block. No filler, though the inline return type notation is dense; every element earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the exact return shape (mesh_path, total_lods, per-LOD fields and channels), which is the key missing piece. Only the absence of routing guidance against similar UV-inspection siblings keeps it from a 5.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Per-LOD' framing and return structure loosely reinforce the lod_index semantics but add no syntax beyond what the schema states.

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 ('inventory of UV channels on a static mesh') with a clear scope qualifier ('per-LOD'), which distinguishes it from the simple get_mesh_uv_channel_count sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, so it doesn't reach the full 5.

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 description implies a read-only inspection use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never contrasts with siblings like get_mesh_uv_channel_count, get_uv_health_report, or get_mesh_uv_area. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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