geometry.report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'report' without describing whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, or what output format is returned. The agent cannot assess safety or expected behavior.

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 one short sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices informativeness. It could easily include more useful details without excessive 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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide enough context for safe and correct use. It fails to explain what 'data' is reported, how results are returned, or any error conditions. The tool is underspecified.

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 single parameter 'object' has 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'object' means (e.g., name path, type constraints, or valid values), leaving the agent to guess. It adds no value beyond the 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 states 'Report non-mesh geometry object data', which clearly specifies the action (report) and the resource type (non-mesh geometry objects). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mesh.report and geometry.create_*, though it could be more explicit about which geometry types are included.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, expected use cases, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like mesh.report or volume.report exist, but no comparison is given.

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