mesh_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get information' without confirming read-only behavior, lack of side effects, or any access requirements. The agent cannot infer safety from this text alone.

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 extremely concise—one line for purpose, then structured Args/Returns sections. Every word adds value, and no unnecessary information is present.

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 simple info tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters but fails to detail the return format beyond 'element counts.' Without an output schema, more specificity (e.g., keys like nodes, elements) would help the agent.

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 description explains both parameters with default behaviors ('default: first mesh', 'default: current model'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type and title. Given 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates.

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 states 'Get information about a mesh' and specifies return includes element counts. This clearly identifies the action, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like mesh_list beyond the name. A slightly more specific purpose statement would improve clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mesh_list or geometry_get_boundaries. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical workflow steps, or exclusions.

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