validate_geometry

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

With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description adds minimal behavioral context. It lists the checked issues but does not describe what happens during validation, whether a selection is needed, or what form the QC report takes beyond what the output schema might already provide.

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 concise phrase, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized, though slightly terse.

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?

Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description lacks usage context and behavioral nuance. It is adequate for a simple read-only validation tool but does not fully explain when or how it should be invoked relative to other tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. According to the baseline for 0 parameters, this receives a 4; there is no need for parameter explanation in the description.

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 identifies the tool as a QC report covering three specific geometry issues: collisions (BVH), z-fighting, and floating objects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mesh_analysis or check_manifold, though it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb phrase.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without indicating typical use cases, required setup, or exclusions.

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