mesh.report

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

The description states 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, without annotations, the description carries the full burden; it lacks details on what the report contains, output format, or side effects. The 'read-only' note adds value but is insufficient.

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 brief (one sentence) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it omits important details about parameters and output, making it slightly under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 the need to understand the report's content, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'analytic topology report' means or what the returned data looks like, leaving agents with insufficient information.

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 input schema has one optional parameter 'object' with schema description coverage at 0%. The tool description does not mention or explain the 'object' parameter, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema title.

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 it provides an 'analytic topology report' for a mesh, and it explicitly mentions it is 'read-only'. This distinguishes it from other mesh tools like mesh.extrude and mesh.selection_report, though it could be clearer how it differs from other report tools.

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 such as mesh.selection_report or other topology analysis tools. There are no usage context or exclusions mentioned.

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