get_model_blueprint

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is read-only. The description adds what data is included (topology, physics, dimensions, anchor) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as performance or limits. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core function. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy 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 low complexity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter detail, which limits completeness in real-world selection scenarios.

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 schema has zero coverage for the single parameter obj_name, and the description does not explain it beyond implying it refers to a mesh. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving ambiguity about required format or type.

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 it provides a complete technical blueprint of the mesh, enumerating specific content areas (topology, physics, dimensions, anchor). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_object_info or get_object_anchors by implying a comprehensive overview.

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 context is implied by the word 'lengkap' (complete), suggesting use when a full technical blueprint is needed, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like mesh_analysis or get_object_info.

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