check_mesh

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it defines the return semantics of 'issues' (['none'] when clean) and 'uv' (including the texel_density_spread scale where 1 is even and above 4 is stretched, 'none' when no UV map). This is genuine behavioral disclosure beyond a normal read inspection, though it doesn't state whether the check mutates state or its performance cost.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: it opens with the defect list and then handles the two output keys in sequence. No filler, though the run-on enumeration and mid-sentence backtick keys are slightly harder to parse.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema inspection tool, the description covers the output interpretations an agent needs to act on results, which is the critical gap. The remaining gap is input meaning and when-to-use, but overall it is close to 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'name' is undocumented in both schema and description; the description explains outputs, not the input. With only one param the impact is small, so this sits at the minimum-viable baseline rather than below.

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?

States a specific inspection verb and enumerates the exact mesh defects it detects (triangle/n-gon counts, open holes, loose parts, zero-area faces, doubled vertices, inward normals, unapplied scale), plus UV quality. This is far more specific than sibling diagnostics like mesh_info, and the agent can distinguish it from repair_mesh (which fixes) and check_symmetry/check_contacts (different checks).

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 a diagnostic/audit use case but never states when to run it versus alternatives like mesh_info, check_game_ready, or repair_mesh. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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