get_vertex_groups

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates the non-destructive nature, and the description is consistent with it. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as error conditions, performance, or what happens if the object does not exist. Since an output schema exists, return format is covered there, but the description could offer more about side effects or prerequisites.

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 is front-loaded with the action and purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool with one required parameter and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete because it fails to explain the parameter semantics. While the output schema covers return values, the missing parameter guidance means an agent cannot reliably know what to pass. The description should at least mention that 'object' is the name of the mesh object.

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 for the parameter 'object', and the description does not clarify what value to pass. It mentions 'on a mesh' but does not explicitly state that 'object' is the mesh identifier or provide any format or example. The agent is left guessing what to provide, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly.

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 the action (Get), the resource (vertex groups), and the specific detail (with member counts), which distinguishes it from related tools like get_mesh_info and get_vertices. The verb and object are explicit, leaving no ambiguity 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 implies usage for retrieving vertex groups with their member counts, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives or any exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or conditions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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