production.character_analyze_surface

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying results are clustered by region and use robust thresholds, and it explicitly limits scope to analysis. It does not describe performance characteristics or result structure, but an 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?

The description is a compact single sentence with the indicator list front-loaded and the scope constraint 'Analysis only' at the end. Every clause carries useful information, though the dense semicolon-separated list is slightly harder to scan than separate sentences would be.

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 three-parameter analysis tool with no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves significant gaps: an agent cannot tell what object_name must identify, what options controls, or how manifest affects behavior. The output schema and annotations reduce the burden, but the missing parameter semantics make this incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage: object_name, options, and manifest. The description does not explain what object_name refers to, what can be passed in options, or what manifest is used for. 'Robust thresholds' hints that options may affect analysis sensitivity, but there is no explicit mapping to any parameter.

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 names the specific resource, surface quality, and enumerates concrete indicators such as bumps, pinching, faceting, and normal irregularity. It distinguishes this diagnostic tool from sibling analysis tools like silhouette, proportions, and asymmetry, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'Analysis only' implies this should be used for inspection rather than repair, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related analyses such as character_modeling_audit, mesh_signature, or retopology_analyze. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are stated.

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