feedback-critique

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'One observe call' implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that it doesn't modify the scene, what the report contains beyond 'mesh/UV', or any side effects. It also doesn't clarify whether it requires a specific context (e.g., active object). The description adds some context (bundled report) but is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses compact phrasing like 'the anti-blob' in the schema title, but the description itself is efficient. It doesn't waste words, though it could be slightly more structured with a second sentence for usage context.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the report contains, how the parameters affect the output, or what the agent should do with the results. The sibling tools like feedback-quality and feedback-topology suggest a family of feedback tools, but this description doesn't clarify how this one fits. It's a single sentence that leaves many gaps for a tool that bundles multiple outputs.

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. It mentions 'multi-angle images' and 'mesh/UV report' but doesn't explain the parameters (res, object, preset, shading) beyond what the schema titles provide. The schema already has titles and enums, but the description doesn't add meaning like how 'preset' affects the images or what 'object' selection means. It's a baseline 3 because the schema has some self-documenting elements (titles, enums), but the description doesn't add significant value.

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's purpose: 'One observe call to judge a model' with 'multi-angle images + mesh/UV report bundled'. It specifies the verb (judge) and resource (model), and the bundled report distinguishes it from other feedback tools like feedback-quality or feedback-topology. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it doesn't fully differentiate from all feedback-* siblings.

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 implies usage for judging a model via multi-angle images and a mesh/UV report, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives like feedback-quality or feedback-topology, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., object must be selected). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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