feedback.critique

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as an 'observe call' but does not clarify whether it is read-only, what side effects occur, permissions needed, or what happens to the scene. The term 'judge' is ambiguous.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but at the cost of completeness. It omits critical details about parameters, output, and usage context. The brevity does not serve the tool's complexity.

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 four parameters with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the bundled report contains, how parameters affect the critique, or what the agent should expect after invocation.

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 description does not explain any of the four parameters (res, object, preset, shading). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the titles. The mention of 'multi-angle images' weakly relates to preset, but no mapping is provided.

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 the tool judges a model using multi-angle images and a bundled mesh/UV report, which indicates its purpose. However, the phrase 'One observe call' is arcane jargon that obscures clarity, and it doesn't clearly distinguish this critique tool from sibling feedback tools beyond mentioning the bundled output.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like feedback.topology or feedback.quality. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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