production.retopology_plan

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful context: it enumerates what the plan includes (strategy, budget, priorities, consequences, risks) and discloses the graceful failure mode for unsupported remesh/hybrid cases. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loads the core purpose before adding the unsupported-case caveat. It is slightly dense but earns its length overall.

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, and annotations cover safety. But the undefined 'options' parameter and lack of sibling differentiation leave gaps for an agent trying to call this correctly versus neighboring retopology planning tools.

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 description provides no information about the 'options' object or what 'object_name' expects. With two parameters—one being an open-ended options bag—the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly states the tool produces a retopology plan covering strategy, budget, protected/deformation priorities, and downstream consequences/risks. It reads as a planning artifact distinct from analysis siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with retopology_budget or retopology_priority_map.

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 'apply=false' implies this is a read-only planning step, and the unsupported-case note tells the agent what happens when the plan cannot be produced. However, there is no explicit instruction on when to prefer this over retopology_budget or retopology_priority_map, nor a stated workflow position (e.g., before retopology_create_candidate).

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