quads_to_tris

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

Given no annotations, the description should fully describe behavior. It mentions the conversion but does not disclose side effects (e.g., in-place modification, effect on UVs, or requirement for mesh objects). The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 efficient: two sentences plus structured Args/Returns section. Every part adds value, no redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and basic use. However, it omits trivial context like 'works only on mesh objects' or 'modifies the object in place.' Overall adequate.

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%, and the description adds no extra meaning to the single parameter 'object_name' beyond its title in the schema. The parameter is simple, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema 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 states the tool converts quad faces to triangles and specifies use cases (game engine export, triangulated geometry). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tris_to_quads.

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 description implies usage contexts (game engine export, triangulation needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives like tris_to_quads for the opposite operation.

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