mesh_grading_calculate

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive safety properties. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns cell heights, positions, actual adjustments, and mesh_configure arguments, and it explains that strict mode rejects incompatible constraints while adjust modes preserve specific values. It still leaves error behavior and axis/divisions handling vague.

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 dense but appropriately sized for an eight-parameter calculation tool, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds constraints, modes, or output behavior that an agent needs, with no filler.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not fully explain return values, though it helpfully summarizes them. For a complex eight-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, it is incomplete: axis and divisions are entirely undocumented, and the valid fit values are only partially enumerated.

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, and it does for several parameters: length, cells, first_cell_height, growth_ratio, direction, and the fit modes strict, adjust_ratio, and adjust_first_height. However, axis and divisions receive no semantic explanation at all, leaving two of eight parameters opaque despite the zero schema 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate structured geometric grading in metres.' It clearly distinguishes this from mesh_generate and mesh_configure by explaining that it returns configuration arguments and does not alter a session, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling mesh_grading_two_sided, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 gives clear usage context: supply length plus at least two of cells, first_cell_height, and growth_ratio, and then apply the returned arguments and call mesh_generate. It also states that the calculation does not alter a session or generate a mesh by itself. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over mesh_grading_two_sided.

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