get_mesh_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the specific data returned, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations (e.g., behavior if the object is missing, or whether it aggregates data from modifiers). Given the annotation covers read-only, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists the data points. Every word adds value; there is no waste or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already documented. However, the input parameter ambiguity is a notable gap, and the description does not mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., object must exist). For a simple read-only tool with a single parameter, this is acceptable but not 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 defines a single required string parameter 'object' with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what 'object' refers to (likely an object name or identifier), leaving the agent to guess. With no schema descriptions, the description must compensate, and it fails to clarify the parameter's meaning or format.

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 clearly states 'Get mesh info' and lists specific data points (vertex/edge/face count, UV maps, vertex groups, has_custom_normals), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_vertex_groups or get_uv_maps, which provide more targeted info, so it loses a point for not drawing that distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_vertex_groups and get_uv_maps exist, but the description gives no exclusions or context for selecting this general info tool over them. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and description content.

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