mesh_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only characterizes the output format (ASCII, first-order, MSH 2.2). It says nothing about side effects, where the export is written, permissions, or how session_id and expected_revision gate the operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and output artifact lead. It is efficiently written, though arguably undersized for a four-parameter tool with a session/revision contract.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the three required parameters, the session precondition, and the concurrency semantics of expected_revision are all absent. For a tool this structured, the description is too thin.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely corresponds to the 'format' parameter ('MSH 2.2' vs default 'msh2'). The three required parameters (session_id, expected_revision, request_key) are left entirely unexplained, which is a significant gap at 0% coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('classified first-order ASCII MSH 2.2'). The purpose is unambiguous, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like openfoam_convert or mesh_generate, and 'for OpenFOAM conversion' could be read as overlapping with the conversion tool's role.

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?

'For OpenFOAM conversion' implies this export is a preparatory step before converting, giving weak workflow context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the sequencing.

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