mesh-report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly marks the tool as 'read-only', which is a key safety trait, but does not describe output format, side effects, or any limitations. This is minimal but adequate for a simple report tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and safety trait. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what the report contains and how to use it. It only states 'analytic topology report' without explaining what topology data is returned or how the object parameter works beyond the schema title. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to choose and invoke the tool.

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 description mentions no parameter details. The input schema has a single optional 'object' parameter whose title ('Mesh object to inspect (defaults to active)') provides some meaning, but since schema description coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate and does not. The parameter is completely ignored.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only report for mesh topology, which distinguishes it from sibling mesh mutation tools like mesh-fill or mesh-subdivide. It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('mesh') with a specific focus ('topology'), though it doesn't elaborate on what the report contains.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative reporting tools (e.g., properties-report, mesh-selection_report) or mutation tools. It only states the default behavior of the object parameter but gives no context on preferred use cases or exclusions.

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