instanced_mesh_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 safety is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the returned payload, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not restate annotation content beyond the redundant 'Read-only' label, but it also omits that transforms are sampled rather than exhaustive.

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 terse lines: the category/safety tag is front-loaded and the resource plus returned fields follow with zero filler. Every token earns its place.

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?

For a 4-parameter, zero-required inspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned and that it is non-mutating. The main gap is not clarifying name-vs-uuid resolution or that the transform list is a bounded sample (default 5, max 20).

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%, so name, uuid, startIndex and sampleCount (with default 5, max 20) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (InstancedMesh) and enumerates exactly what is read back (count, capacity, sample transforms, instance colors, custom attributes), with the [INSPECT] Read-only tag marking it as a read operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from closely related siblings like object_details or batched_mesh_details, which also inspect mesh-like resources.

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?

Usage is only implied by the [INSPECT] Read-only category tag; there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no conditions or prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. set_instanced_mesh for mutation, batched_mesh_details for batched meshes). The agent must infer routing from the tag alone.

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