object.retopo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes that voxel is skipped on multi-island/high non-manifold meshes, but does not disclose whether the operation modifies the original object or creates a new one, whether it is destructive, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mesh modifying 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 sentence that conveys the core purpose and mode selection logic. No wasted words, front-loaded with action and budget.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what happens to the original mesh, what the output is, failure conditions, or how to interpret the 'preserve_sharp' and 'preserve_boundary' parameters (which are effectively deprecated). The tool lacks context for safe and effective use.

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?

Schema provides titles for parameters (e.g., 'object' title is 'Mesh object to retopologize') which serve as brief descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage (titles but no descriptions), and no additional value from description.

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 tool retopologizes a mesh to a face budget, specifying two methods (voxel+decimate or decimate-only). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are mostly creation, transformation, or inspection 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?

The description mentions two modes (auto-skip voxel on unsafe meshes) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., other retopology tools) or when not to use it. The context is implied but not explicit.

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