check_manifold

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no mutation, and the description adds value by naming the specific geometric checks performed (boundary/non-manifold edges, holes, Euler). It does not describe any unexpected side effects, which is consistent with a read-only analysis tool.

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, using a short, front-loaded phrase that immediately conveys the purpose. It is not a full sentence but is free of redundancy and unnecessary detail, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter), the readOnlyHint annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core functionality. It names the analyses performed, and return-value details are left to the output schema. The lack of parameter explanation is a minor gap but not critical for such a simple tool.

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 single parameter object_name has no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not mention or elaborate on the parameter, leaving the agent to rely solely on the parameter name. With zero coverage, the description should have compensated by at least referencing the object name, but it does not.

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 'Analisis watertight: edge boundary/non-manifold, lubang, Euler' clearly specifies the tool's function as watertight analysis and lists concrete checks (boundary/non-manifold edges, holes, Euler characteristic), distinguishing it from broader siblings like validate_geometry or mesh_analysis. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, preventing a perfect score.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for watertight checking but does not mention sibling tools or clarify scenarios where it should be preferred, such as before 3D printing or boolean operations.

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