production.retopology_analyze

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real operational context: measurements are in world metres, problem IDs are bounded, and no raw topology dump is returned. That output-shaping detail is genuinely beyond what the annotations or schema declare.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and units front-loaded, followed by the metric list and a useful negative constraint. Dense but every clause carries information; the 'bounded problem IDs / no raw dump' tail 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be explained, and the description adequately frames what is audited. The gap is the completely undocumented 'options' parameter on an analysis tool, which an agent would need described to call it confidently.

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% and the optional 'options' parameter is an untyped additionalProperties bag with no explanation anywhere. The description says nothing about what object_name should be or what options accepts, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Base-mesh topology audit') and enumerates exactly what is checked (manifoldness, boundaries, slivers, normals, components, valence), which distinguishes it from retopology_analyze_density and retopology_validate by content. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the separation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can guess this is a pre-retopo diagnostic, but the description never says when to reach for it versus retopology_validate, retopology_analyze_density, or game_mesh_validate. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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