mesh_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns but does not mention read-only status, error handling for invalid/missing files, or the nature of the sanity-check. This leaves important behavioral aspects unclear.

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, clean sentence that front-loads the core information without filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives a basic understanding of the return content (size, volume, sanity-check) but lacks details on output structure, specific metrics, or error conditions. It is sufficient for a simple tool but leaves gaps.

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 sole parameter file_path has zero schema description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates by indicating the target is an 'STL/3MF file,' which clarifies acceptable file types, but it does not explain path format or access requirements.

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 resource (STL/3MF file) and the type of output (size, volume, sanity-check info), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like find_circular_holes or get_cross_section. The missing explicit verb is offset by the noun 'summary' which implies a retrieval/analysis operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any indication of exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools such as check_solid or compare_meshes are not mentioned, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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