uv-report

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'read-only', which indicates non-mutating behavior, and lists the output items. However, it doesn't disclose potential errors (e.g., non-mesh object), the exact structure of the report, or any prerequisites beyond the optional object parameter. This is basic but not rich context.

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 with no wasted words. It clearly lists what the tool reports and its read-only nature, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a simple read-only report with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description lists the key output categories but omits details about report format, error behavior, or what 'layers' and 'island count' precisely entail. It's adequate but leaves gaps for an agent deciding whether the tool fits a need.

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 does not mention the 'object' parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema's title ('Mesh object to inspect (defaults to active)') provides some meaning, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage or reinforce the parameter's purpose.

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 an analytic UV report for a mesh, listing specific outputs (layers, has_uvs, island count) and explicitly marking it read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling UV action tools like uv-unwrap or uv-pack_islands.

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 implies use for inspecting UV data without modification, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over uv-layers or other UV report tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. It's reasonably clear that it's for reading UV info, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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