mesh_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does signal that this is a non-destructive measurement and that some geometry prerequisite must be satisfied first. It does not explain the required integrity hash, whether the file is read from disk or from the open project, or any side effects/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?

Two terse fragments, front-loaded with the verb and the measured quantities, with no filler. The "Needs [geometry]" fragment is short but its opacity is a clarity problem rather than a length problem.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the metric list is complete. What is missing for a 2-required-param tool with zero schema coverage is the meaning of the SHA-256 parameter and a legible statement of the geometry prerequisite.

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 must compensate. It partially does for "source" by naming the accepted formats (STL/PLY), but the required "expected_source_sha256" — the more consequential parameter, presumably an integrity check that can fail the call — is never mentioned.

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?

States a specific verb ("Measure") and resource (STL/PLY mesh) and enumerates exactly what is computed: bounds, volume, triangle count, watertightness. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling mesh_operation, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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?

"Needs [geometry]" is the only usage hint and it is cryptic — the bracketed token is undefined, so an agent cannot tell whether it means a loaded project, a file path, or a prior tool call. No alternatives (e.g. mesh_operation) or when-not conditions are given.

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