feedback.uv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions rendering and returning analytics but does not state whether the operation modifies the scene, requires a selection, or produces persistent outputs beyond the return value.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It earns its place but may be overly brief relative to the tool's complexity (4 parameters, rendering action).

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?

The description omits key context: what 'structured UV analytics' contains, how the checker is rendered (viewport? image?), and prerequisites. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left with significant unknowns.

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 tool description should explain parameter usage. It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema titles (res, view, object, texture_size). This is a critical 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 'Render a UV checker eye and return structured UV analytics' clearly states the verb ('Render') and resource ('UV checker eye' and 'analytics'), distinguishing it from sibling UV tools like uv.report or uv.pack_islands.

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 use for UV quality checking but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like uv.report or uv.unwrap. No when-not or exclusions mentioned.

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