feedback-uv

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose whether any scene changes occur, whether the render is displayed or saved, how analytics are returned, or what inputs are required to succeed. No annotations exist to fill in the behavioral safety profile, so the description carries the full burden but only says 'render and return analytics.'

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 very short, front-loaded, and contains no redundant fluff. However, it is slightly underspecified, and terms like 'eye' make it less precise; it earns high marks for brevity but not maximum for clarity.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only a single sentence, the description leaves out critical context such as what analytics are produced, how to select an object, what views are relevant, and whether the tool modifies the scene. It is inadequate for an agent to anticipate results or failure modes.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for res, view, object, or texture_size. It does not explain how these parameters affect rendering or analytics, so the agent must rely on parameter titles alone.

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 clear verb + resource: render a UV checker pattern and return structured UV analytics. It is reasonably specific, but there is some ambiguity in 'UV checker eye' and it does not differentiate itself from sibling feedback-* or uv-* tools such as uv-report or feedback-capture.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool instead of uv-report, uv-export_layout, or feedback-capture, and no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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