feedback.topology

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 does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur (e.g., viewport update), or if it modifies the scene. The only behavioral hint is that it renders an overlay, but details on output and safety are missing.

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, which is concise, but it omits important contextual details. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but could be more efficient by including additional guidance without adding length.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify the tool's output (e.g., viewport overlay, rendered image) and confirm it is non-destructive. It does not address these, leaving the agent with gaps in understanding.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter-level information. The schema titles provide some meaning (e.g., 'Square render resolution'), but the description does not leverage or enhance these. Baseline is low due to coverage gap.

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 that the tool renders a topology overlay with color coding for n-gons (red), tris (orange), quads (grey), and wireframe. This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from sibling feedback tools like 'feedback.uv' or 'feedback.wire_shaded'.

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 topology visualization, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'feedback.uv', 'feedback.wire_shaded'). No mention of prerequisites or conditions for use.

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