maya_unreal_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states '씬을 전혀 바꾸지 않습니다' (does not change the scene at all) and enumerates the checks performed, giving confidence it is non-destructive. It does not describe the output/report format, but the most important behavioral trait (safety) is clearly disclosed.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then usage timing, then the list of check items, then parameter details. Every sentence adds meaningful information; the list of check items is the tool's core value and not superfluous. It is concise despite being informative.

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 the simple 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, parameter semantics, and non-destructive behavior. The only notable omission is the return value/result format, but for a preflight audit tool this is a minor gap; the description is still largely complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It does: objects is explained with wildcard support and fallback behavior (selection → all meshes), and prefix is described with concrete examples ('SM_', 'SK_'). This is excellent parameter documentation.

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 '언리얼 익스포트 전 지오메트리 문제를 감사합니다' (audits geometry issues before Unreal export) and explicitly says it does not change the scene. It lists specific check items, distinguishing it as a read-only audit tool among siblings like maya_unreal_check_skeleton and maya_unreal_check_materials.

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?

Provides explicit timing instruction: '정리나 익스포트를 하기 전에 항상 먼저 호출하세요' (always call first before cleanup or export). This clearly communicates when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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