geometry_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' line is pure repetition that earns no credit. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond annotations — e.g. whether morph attributes are only returned when present, or how the payload scales with mesh complexity.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the '[INSPECT]' tag immediately signals the tool category. The 'Read-only' clause is redundant against the annotations and is the only wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned geometry fields, which is exactly the burden it should carry. It stops short of explaining mesh resolution when both optional identifiers are omitted, but for a simple read-only inspector the gap is minor.

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 100% and both parameters (name, uuid) are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description implies the tool targets a specific mesh but adds nothing about how name vs uuid selection works or what happens when neither optional parameter is supplied.

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 clear read operation on a specific resource ('Geometry of a mesh') and enumerates the payload it covers (vertices, attributes, index, bounding box, morph attributes). This content listing helps distinguish it from generic siblings like object_details, though it never explicitly names the alternatives it differs from.

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 '[INSPECT]' prefix and 'Read-only' hint at a diagnostic context but give no explicit when-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to pick geometry_details over object_details, bounding_boxes, morph_targets, or instanced_mesh_details, nor are prerequisites stated.

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