get_uv_maps

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with that. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the annotation, but since the safety profile is covered and an output schema exists, this is acceptable though minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes meaning. This is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read operation.

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 read-only, one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, but it lacks edge-case context such as what happens when the mesh has no UV maps and does not connect to related UV operations. It conveys the core operation without alternative or exception guidance.

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 only declares 'object' as a required string with 0% description coverage, so the phrase 'on a mesh object' adds useful meaning by constraining the parameter to a mesh object rather than a generic object. However, it does not clarify object referencing conventions or behaviors when the object lacks UV maps.

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 identifies the verb-resource pair 'Get UV maps' and scopes it to 'a mesh object', so an agent knows what operation is being performed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_uv_map or smart_uv_project, but the 'get' framing is enough to separate it from creation 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or prerequisites such as the object already having UV maps. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'Get UV maps'.

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