production.retopology_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the exact analysis surface and, importantly, the limits of certification — that deformation and artistic quality are out of scope. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g. needing a bound source/relationship) or cost on dense meshes.

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 primary claim ('LOW topology and protected-source-region verification') front-loaded ahead of the check list and the disclaimers. Dense jargon ('LOW topology') costs a little clarity but nothing is wasted.

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 the check list plus non-certification caveats cover behavior well. However, for a tool whose only required argument is an entirely unexplained 'relationship', the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 description never mentions either parameter. The required 'relationship' string is completely undefined — an agent cannot tell whether it is a mesh pair id, a region name, or a source/target reference. With two undocumented params, the description must compensate and 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?

States a specific verb+resource (retopology validation) and enumerates the actual checks: manifold, open boundary, degenerates, slivers, normal consistency, component and valence reports. It also scopes itself against related notions by saying it does not require all-quads and does not certify deformation. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead (retopology_validate_weights, game_mesh_validate, uv_validate), which keeps it at 4.

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 negative scoping ('does not require all-quads', 'does not certify deformation or artistic quality') implies a specific position in the pipeline, but never states the trigger — e.g. after retopology_create_candidate or before export. No alternative tool is named, so the agent must infer selection from the sibling list.

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