feedback-topology

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the rendering behavior and color mapping, which is useful context beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention whether the render respects the current viewport, what the output format is, or potential side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 that is front-loaded with the action ('Render a topology overlay') and packs the complete color legend and wireframe detail into the remainder. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simplicity—3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations—the description adequately captures the essential visualization semantics. The schema titles cover defaults for res/view and the active-object default for object. A slightly richer note about applying to the given object or view would improve completeness, but it is not a critical omission.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (res, view, object). While the schema parameter titles are somewhat self-explanatory, the tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the agent receives no compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Render' with the resource 'topology overlay' and details the exact color legend (n-gons red, tris orange, quads grey) plus wireframe. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling feedback tools like feedback-uv, feedback-wire_shaded, or feedback-orientation.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when topology diagnostics are needed, as it explicitly shows how n-gons, tris, and quads are color-coded. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion conditions, but for a visual feedback renderer the intended use is quite clear.

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