generate_visual_mesh

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

No annotations provided, description carries full burden. Discloses output is STL, non-precise, uses external API. Lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but sufficient for core behavior.

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?

Three sentences: primary action, usage guidance, post-processing instruction. Each sentence is essential, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, output type, precision limitation, and next steps. Missing details on input constraints (e.g., image format) but otherwise complete.

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 100% for the single parameter (imageBase64). Description adds no extra meaning beyond 'raw image', so 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 explicitly states 'Generate a 3D mesh from a raw image' and specifies output as STL. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is not suited for precision parts, contrasting with generate_precise_cap.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use ('for visualization only') and when-not-to-use ('not dimensionally precise, not suited to a cap/plug that needs to physically fit'). Also directs to feed into repair_mesh, guiding post-usage.

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