blender_msfs_get_lod_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no modifications, nor does it cover error handling (e.g., missing hierarchy). It also does not mention what the returned data structure looks like.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the included data. There is no filler or repetition, consistent with concise design.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose, but with no output schema and no annotations, it should at least mention expected return information or failure behavior. The absence of these details leaves an agent uncertain about how to interpret results. A 3 reflects a minimally adequate but gapped description.

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 100%, and the single parameter 'base_name' is already described as 'Base name of the LOD hierarchy'. The main description mentions hierarchy contents but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), resource ('LOD hierarchy'), and the key contents ('vertex counts and distances'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_msfs_create_lod_hierarchy or blender_msfs_setup_lod_distances, which create or modify hierarchies. No ambiguity exists about what the tool does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after creating an LOD hierarchy or before decimating. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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