geometry-report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and resource without explaining side effects, return value format, or potential errors. The read-only nature is implied by 'report' but not explicitly confirmed, and no details about data coverage are given.

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 that immediately conveys the primary action and target. It contains no fluff or redundant information, fitting the minimalist style of the sibling report tools.

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?

While the tool is relatively simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description omits crucial context such as what data is actually reported, whether the tool is read-only, and how the output is structured. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description leaves a significant gap for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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 schema has 0% description coverage stealth, and the description adds no explanation for the 'object' parameter beyond the schema's title. It does not clarify the expected format (e.g., name vs. path), accepted object types, or how the parameter affects the report. Thus, the description does not add meaningful value over the raw schema.

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 action (report) and the resource (non-mesh geometry object data), which distinguishes it from mesh-specific reporting tools. However, it does not specify what aspects of the data are reported (e.g., dimensions, transforms, modifiers), leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mesh_report or other report tools. The description only implies a use case for non-mesh geometry, but does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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