Get Mesh Vertices

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool uses offset/limit pagination and returns positions as [x, y, z] arrays. However, it does not disclose potential performance implications for large meshes, what happens if offset exceeds vertex count, or error conditions. The description adds some value but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that communicate the core function and return type. There is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, all documented) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: what the tool does, how pagination works, and the return format. Minor gaps exist, such as not mentioning behavior for empty meshes or invalid node names, but these are likely covered by the output schema or error handling.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (node, limit, offset). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the return format ('[x, y, z] arrays') and the pagination concept ('offset/limit pagination'). This extra context helps the agent understand the data shape and usage pattern.

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's purpose: 'Query vertex positions from a mesh with offset/limit pagination.' It specifies the resource (mesh vertices) and action (query), and mentions pagination details. The tool name and title also clearly indicate the function, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mesh.info or curve.cvs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where another tool might be better (e.g., if vertex normals or UV coordinates are needed). There are no usage restrictions or prerequisites stated, leaving the agent to infer context.

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