production.retopology_analyze_density

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral nuance — that non-uniform density is not automatically flagged as a defect — which steers interpretation of results, but says nothing about scope of inspection, cost, or how the object is traversed.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the measured metrics are front-loaded and the interpretive caveat closes the definition. Jargon-heavy for a fragment, but every phrase carries information.

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 values need not be explained, but the free-form 'options' object is the main configuration surface and is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. For a tool whose value depends on configuring priorities, that omission leaves the definition materially incomplete.

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 0% and the sole optional parameter 'options' is an unconstrained free-form object with additionalProperties true, so the agent has no idea what keys it accepts. The description's mention of curvature/deformation/visual/silhouette priorities hints at what options might configure, but gives no key names, value shapes, or defaults.

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 enumerates the measured quantities (surface/world-unit density, grid distribution, edge-length quantiles, region-level curvature/deformation/visual/silhouette priorities), which tells an agent roughly what the analysis produces. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from near neighbors such as retopology_analyze, retopology_priority_map, or uv_analyze_texel_density.

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?

There is no statement of when to run this versus the other retopology analysis tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage-adjacent content is the interpretive note that density variation is measured rather than universally penalized, which does not tell an agent when to select this tool.

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