analyze_mesh_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: read-only, hard-bounded work/memory (errors rather than returning a partial healthy result, reinforced by the schema), and exact-coordinate welding, which silently affects duplicate detection. It does not describe the result shape (per-check counts vs. booleans) or any runtime/scale expectations, so the transparency is partial.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the scoping denial. Every clause carries information — the check list, the welding rule, and the three excluded concerns — with no filler.

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 read-only analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is checked, what is deliberately not checked, and how coordinates are matched. The remaining gap is the return shape, which an agent must guess since no output schema exists to cover it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the units assumption and the plate index. The description adds only indirect meaning ('bounded' hints at max_triangles, 'exact-coordinate welding' explains duplicate handling); it contributes no new parameter syntax or semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource (topology checks on STL/3MF geometry) and enumerates exactly which checks run: open/non-manifold edges, winding, degenerates, duplicate faces, edge-connected components. That detail separates it implicitly from neighbors like get_stl_info and preflight_check, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Scope and negative framing are clear: read-only, bounded, and explicitly not a repair, self-intersection, or printability tool. That tells an agent when to avoid it, which is unusually strong. It stops short of naming what to call instead for repair or printability questions, leaving routing to inference.

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