host_model_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does well by stating that values are copied on the GUI thread and no native handles leave the callback. It also discloses unit conventions for rotations and offsets, though it does not discuss permissions or rate limits.

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 three short sentences, front-loads the core resource being read, then adds prerequisite and safety notes. There is no wasted text.

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 output schema covers return values, and the description adds useful threading and unit context. However, for a four-parameter read tool with zero schema descriptions, it should explain the required index parameter and the limit/offset pagination controls.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to explain the four parameters. It clarifies object_id indirectly as the known live object ID, but leaves index, limit, and offset unexplained; the radians/millimeters note concerns returned values rather than input parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: read volumes, types, poses, material slots and instances for a known live object ID. It also distinguishes this detailed read from the broader sibling host_model_read by telling the caller to use host_model_read first.

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?

It explicitly establishes a prerequisite: use host_model_read first and call this only for a known live object ID. It does not spell out when not to use it or compare it against every sibling, but the key sequencing guidance is present.

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