feedback-wire_shaded

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions rendering and quality analytics but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies the scene, or what 'quality analytics' entails. It also doesn't state if it requires a specific viewport or if it affects the active object.

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 main action. It includes key features (shaded material, wire overlay, quality analytics) without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate the rendering from the analytics.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value (what 'quality analytics' means), the effect of the 'view' parameter, or any prerequisites. The sibling tools suggest a feedback family, but this description does not clarify its unique role within that family.

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 does not explain the parameters (res, view, object) beyond what the schema provides. The description mentions 'real wire geometry overlay' but does not clarify how parameters affect the output, such as what 'res' controls or how 'object' defaults to active.

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 renders a shaded material view with wire geometry overlay and quality analytics. It specifies the resource (material view) and the action (render), and the mention of 'quality analytics' distinguishes it from other feedback tools like feedback-quality 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?

The description implies usage for inspecting a mesh with shaded material and wire overlay, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like feedback-lookdev or feedback-capture. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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