bisect_mesh

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses crucial behavioral traits: the resultant mesh will have a new edge loop where the plane crossed, and it specifies the output format (Dict with the vertex count). The parameter descriptions detail directional behavior (deleting 'behind' or 'in front' of the normal).

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 initial overview is highly concise and effective. The subsequent parameter descriptions are dense and technical, but this is a necessary consequence of the 0% schema coverage. The structure flows logically from a high-level summary to detailed implementation arguments.

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 complexity and the lack of structured metadata, the definition is extremely complete. It covers the core function, the inputs, the logic of the parameters, the specific use case, and the expected output format (vertex count dictionary).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must be highly detailed. It comprehensively explains the semantic meaning of every parameter. For example, it specifies that `plane_normal` 'need[s] not be unit length' and defines the precise operational meaning of `clear_inner` vs. `clear_outer` relative to the normal vector.

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 uses a specific verb ('Slice') and resource ('mesh'). It clearly differentiates its functions, noting that it cuts a new edge loop and offers optional cleanup/capping features (clearing one side or filling the cut). It is highly distinct from other mesh manipulation tools.

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 definition provides good contextual guidance by suggesting it is 'a clean way to halve a model before adding a Mirror modifier.' However, it does not explicitly compare its behavior against alternatives or define clear exclusion criteria, keeping it at a solid, implied usage level.

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