uv.report

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

The description labels the tool as 'read-only', which is helpful but not elaborated. Without annotations, the description should detail more behavioral traits (e.g., no side effects, active object default, error handling), but it does not. The brief statement adds minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise, a single sentence that directly states purpose and key output elements. It is front-loaded with the most important information ('Analytic UV report') and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

The description omits important details such as the exact output format, error conditions (e.g., no mesh selected), and does not clarify that the output likely contains structured data. Given the lack of an output schema, the description should provide more complete context for a report 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 single parameter 'object' is described only by its schema title, which is already present. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter, such as valid formats or behavior when omitted. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate.

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 a read-only analytic UV report for a mesh, listing layers, has_uvs, and island count. It uses specific terms ('analytic', 'read-only') that differentiate it from UV modification tools. However, it could be more precise about the report's structure.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like uv.layers or mesh.report. The description does not mention typical use cases or when to avoid it.

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