blender_ai_mesh_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Get detailed statistics' strongly implies a read-only inspection operation and the output categories describe what is computed, but the description does not explicitly state that the mesh is not modified, how missing/invalid objects are handled, or that the object must be a mesh.

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 one focused sentence that leads with the action and then provides a useful, specific enumeration of the statistics returned. Every part contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only statistics tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the key output categories and identifies the required input. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify units for bounding box dimensions, the exact meaning of 'and more', or behavior when the named object is not a mesh.

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 only parameter, object_name, is fully documented in the input schema ('Name of the mesh object to analyze') with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the parameter refers to a mesh but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed statistics about a mesh') and enumerates concrete outputs: vertex/edge/face counts, bounding box dimensions, non-manifold edges, UV layers, material slots. This clearly distinguishes the tool from mesh-modification siblings and other measurement tools.

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 implies usage when an agent needs mesh statistics, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related tools like blender_measure_surface_area, blender_validate_mesh_quality, or blender_ai_mesh_cleanup. No exclusions or alternative selection guidance is provided.

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