object.geometry.inspect

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by noting the result is 'bounded' and 'evaluated', and that raw vertex/face arrays are intentionally withheld. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's scope, output nature, and a key limitation with zero filler. Every word 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 single-parameter, read-only inspection tool with a rich output schema and clear annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be more complete by noting how to handle missing objects or by explicitly routing to sibling inspection tools, but the core calling context is well covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention object_name at all. The parameter name and title are self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema's own 'Object Name' label.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('bounded evaluated mesh summary'), and uses the negative clause 'without exposing raw vertex or face arrays' to clarify exactly what the tool does not return. This distinguishes it from broader inspection tools like object.inspect or scene.inspect.

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 phrase 'evaluated mesh summary' gives clear context that this tool is for geometry-level inspection rather than scene-level or lookdev inspection. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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