mesh_audit_uv_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Audit' and the listed counts make clear this is an inspection operation rather than a mutation, but the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, asset loading requirements, or failure modes. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 description is compact and well-structured: purpose, argument, KB pointer, and example. Every section earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded with 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?

Given the single parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is audited, names the parameter, provides a KB reference, and gives an invocation example. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists; the remaining gaps are mainly selection guidance and behavioral caveats.

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 0%, so the Args block compensates by describing static_mesh_path as the 'StaticMesh asset path to inspect' and providing a concrete '/Game/MCP_Test/Example' example. This adds meaningful semantic and format context beyond the bare schema, though it stops short of full path-rule documentation.

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: 'Audit StaticMesh LODs for UV channel counts, vertex counts, and triangles.' It clearly states what the tool measures, which is more precise than a generic static-mesh inspection tool, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from overlapping siblings like inspect_static_mesh_sections.

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 listed metrics imply the intended use case: call this when per-LOD UV channel, vertex, or triangle counts are needed. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool should be preferred, so selection guidance is only implicit.

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