feedback.quality

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, no annotations are provided, and the description lacks further transparency about other potential behaviors (e.g., no authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects). It adds minimal value beyond that.

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 front-loads the purpose, making it efficient and scannable. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could benefit from slight expansion 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?

Given the complexity (18 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings), the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, parameter usage, or how to interpret the quality metrics, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct 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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and 18 parameters, the description does not explain any parameter semantics. It mentions quality categories but does not link them to specific input schema properties, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema titles, which are insufficient for many parameters (e.g., 'name_regex', 'allowed_formats').

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 it provides 'objective quality metrics for a mesh' and lists relevant categories (topology, UVs, etc.), making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling feedback tools like 'feedback.critique' or 'feedback.readiness', which may have overlapping purposes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for mesh quality assessment, but with many sibling tools offering similar functionality, the omission of usage context or exclusions is a significant gap.

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