inspect_static_mesh

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

The description states it is a read operation ('Read structural properties') and mentions 'C++ handler -- benefits from native struct access,' hinting at performance. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or auth requirements. A 3 is appropriate as it adds some value beyond the schema.

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 three sentences with no waste: first sentence states purpose and outputs, second gives relational context, third adds implementation and experiment note. It is front-loaded and efficiently delivers key information.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, outputs (via listing), and context (pairings, C++ implementation). It lacks error handling or permissions info, but for a read-only tool it is reasonably complete. A 4 reflects this slight gap.

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 input schema fully covers the required 'path' parameter, and the description adds meaning by listing the returned properties (LOD count, vertex/triangle counts, etc.), which goes beyond the schema. This compensates for the lack of an output schema, scoring a 4.

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 reads structural properties of a UStaticMesh asset and lists specific outputs (LOD count, vertex/triangle counts, bounding box, material slots). It distinguishes from siblings by naming pairing tools (inspect_asset, inspect_material), implying this is for mesh-specific structural data.

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 explicitly pairs with inspect_asset and inspect_material, indicating when to use this tool versus those alternatives. It provides clear context for selection, though it does not list all alternatives or state explicit 'do not use' conditions.

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