Get Mesh

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden and discloses meaningful behavior: the editable-object requirement, the C4D triangle storage quirk (c==d), and the default 50,000 count cap to protect JSON payload size. It also describes the return representation for triangles and quads.

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?

Three dense sentences cover purpose, prerequisite, output encoding, and limits with no filler. The most important constraint, editable objects and required conversion, appears early.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behaviors: readable object types, conversion prerequisite, geometry encoding, and output caps. It stops short of specifying the exact response structure or what happens when a cap is exceeded, but it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already handles parameter definitions. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the max_points/max_polys caps, how to override them, and reinforces the editable constraint on the handle parameter.

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 starts with a specific verb, 'Read', and a specific resource, 'points and polygons (or spline segments)', scoped to editable PointObject / PolygonObject / SplineObject. It clearly identifies what this tool returns and differentiates it from sibling writers like set_mesh and generic get_params.

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 an explicit prerequisite: primitives must be converted via modeling_command make_editable, so an agent knows not to call get_mesh directly on a Cube or Sphere. It does not name an alternative geometry-reading tool, but the conversion routing is enough to establish when the tool applies.

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