mesh_quality

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: cells at or below threshold fail, the failure list is bounded, and counts/coverage describe the complete mesh even when the list is truncated, which is valuable operational context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by metric and threshold guidance, then failure semantics. Sentences are dense and mostly earn their place, though the metric/threshold notes could be slightly tighter.

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, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds metric and failure-truncation semantics, leaving it largely complete for correct invocation despite the undocumented required params.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the burden, and it partially does: minSICN vs minDetJac semantics and threshold scaling are explained, and 'failure list is bounded' implies the failing_limit behavior. But session_id, expected_revision, and histogram_bins remain undocumented in both schema and text.

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 (evaluate), resource (all volume cells) and output (quality statistics/histogram and worst failures). It further distinguishes itself from the OpenFOAM sibling by explicitly noting 'This is Gmsh quality, not OpenFOAM checkMesh', so an agent can route between mesh_quality and the openfoam_* tools without opening schemas.

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 gives real guidance on selecting a threshold per metric ('choose its threshold for the model scale') and on failure semantics, which is usable context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as mesh_inspect or when a quality check is warranted versus not, so usage is only implied.

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