mesh_analysis

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds context by listing what is analyzed (tris/quads/ngons, non-manifold, loose geometry), but does not disclose output format, edge cases, or any additional behavior. It provides moderate value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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, compact sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the key topic (topology quality) and briefly enumerates the checks. Though terse, it earns its place as concise, but could be slightly expanded without losing efficiency.

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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the purpose of the parameter or provide usage context relative to sibling tools. The output schema covers return values, but the overall description leaves significant gaps in understanding when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 one parameter 'object_name' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description fails to explain what 'object_name' refers to or how it is used, leaving the agent without guidance. No compensation for the low coverage is provided.

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 what the tool analyzes: topology quality including tris/quads/ngons, non-manifold, and loose geometry. It clearly identifies the resource (mesh topology) and specific aspects, but lacks an explicit verb like 'analyze' or 'check', which would fully clarify the action. It partially distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_geometry by listing concrete topology metrics.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_geometry or check_manifold. The description implies it is a topology analysis tool but does not specify scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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