check_mesh

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds valuable output semantics beyond the annotations: it explains that 'issues' is ['none'] when the mesh is clean and defines the UV quality fields, including the texel_density_spread threshold where above 4 means stretched.

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 front-loaded with the diagnostic list, followed by concise explanations of the 'issues' and 'uv' fields. Every sentence adds useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values; it does so for 'issues' and the UV map fields but not for the full return structure, such as counts, arrays of holes, or loose parts. It also leaves the required 'name' parameter unexplained and provides no usage context, making it only minimally complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 one required parameter, 'name', with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions or explains it. With low schema coverage, the description is expected to compensate, but it provides no information about what the name refers to or how to supply it.

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 that the tool reports mesh diagnostics: triangle/n-gon counts, open holes, loose parts, zero-area faces, doubled vertices, inward normals, unapplied scale, and UV quality. It distinguishes itself from generic mesh-info siblings by focusing on quality issues and UV metrics, but it never explicitly says how it differs from tools like mesh_info or check_game_ready.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as mesh_info, check_game_ready, or repair_mesh. The implied use case—validating a mesh—is inferable from the name and output list, but the description provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing guidance.

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