Extract mesh quality metrics like total cells, aspect ratios, and cells per wavelength to assess mesh suitability; connected mode queries real stats, offline mode describes expected metrics.
Extract mesh quality metrics including total cells, aspect ratios, and cells per wavelength. In connected mode this queries actual mesh statistics; in offline mode it describes what metrics would be returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behavioral modes (connected queries real data, offline describes expected metrics), but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, or authentication requirements. The disclosure is moderate.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key capabilities, no redundant information. Could be slightly more specific about return format, but overall efficient.
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 covers the tool's purpose and two modes, but lacks details about output structure or what exactly 'mesh quality metrics' include beyond the examples. Given no output schema, more specificity would be beneficial for completeness.
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?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% with empty properties), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.
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 extracts mesh quality metrics (total cells, aspect ratios, cells per wavelength), with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from a similar sibling tool, cst_get_mesh_info, which could cause confusion.
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 differentiates connected vs offline mode, providing some context for when each mode applies. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cst_get_mesh_info, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.