instanced_mesh_details

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by stating 'Inspect'. It goes beyond annotations by listing the specific data retrieved (count, transforms, etc.), ensuring the agent knows exactly what to expect. No behavioral contradictions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every word adds value, with no wasted space.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and the data it returns. Given high schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an inspection tool. It could mention that results are returned, but that is implied by 'Inspect'.

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 100% with good descriptions for all 4 parameters (name, uuid, sampleCount, startIndex). The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Inspect' and specifies the resource 'InstancedMesh', then lists the details it provides (count, max instances, geometry, sample transforms, custom attributes, instance colors). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify (set_instanced_mesh) or inspect other resources (geometry_details, material_details).

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 description explicitly states it is for inspection, which contrasts with sibling tools that modify (set_instanced_mesh). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct alternatives. The context is clear enough given the sibling names.

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