blender_analyze_mesh

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces the safe read-only nature and adds specific behavioral scope: it enumerates exactly what is analyzed, including edge census, shell closure, signed volume, duplicate-vertex precision (1e-5), and modifier stack. This is useful context beyond the annotations.

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 well front-loaded with a strong summary, followed by a compact list of statistics and a decision-oriented closing sentence. It is slightly dense but each clause carries meaning and nothing is redundant.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description gives a thorough inventory of what the report covers and a stated use case. It does not mention units, failure behavior for non-mesh objects, or exact result structure, but the enumerated statistics and response_format parameter provide enough for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds the notion of 'one mesh' but does not materially expand on the object parameter or the response_format parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Deep statistics for one mesh' and makes explicit it goes beyond face counts to include topology, volume, area, UV layers, vertex groups, and more. The verb 'analyze' plus a specific resource and clear scope make it plain what the tool does and why an agent would choose it.

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?

It states a concrete decision use-case: 'Use it to decide between fixing a mesh and regenerating it.' This gives the agent context for when to invoke it, though it does not name alternative sibling tools like blender_measure, blender_validate, or blender_find_problems or explicitly say when not to use it.

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