analyze_quality

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses output behavior ('Each issue comes with a fix hint') and its read-like nature ('Find'), but says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether it mutates the scene. It adds some output context but leaves the safety/mutation profile implicit.

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 purpose clause is front-loaded before the dense but scannable issue list, and every entry earns its place as a concrete detectable defect. It is slightly list-heavy but appropriately sized with no wasted sentences.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what is detected and that fixes are suggested. It is incomplete on how it differs from sibling review/inspection tools and on the semantics of two of its three parameters.

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 coverage is only 33%: 'objects' is documented in the schema, but ground_z and check_intersections have no field descriptions. The description mentions 'intersecting parts' and 'floating or sunken parts', hinting at those parameters, but never explains their meaning, defaults, or the object-scoping syntax, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb (find/analyze) and resource (model quality problems) and enumerates the concrete issues it detects, from flipped normals to missing lights. This is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby QA siblings such as review_model, inspect_object, or check_contacts, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied by the list of things it checks; there is no explicit 'use this when' and no naming of alternatives like review_model or inspect_object. An agent can infer this is a diagnostic pass, but it gets no guidance on when this tool is the right choice versus the adjacent inspection tools.

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