check_symmetry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: how `at` defaults to the bounding-box middle, how empty `tolerance` resolves to a size-dependent value (0.005 m at 0.3 m+), and that the result reports the value used. It never states whether this mutates the scene or is purely a read/measure operation, which is a notable gap for a tool whose name starts with 'Mirror'.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation, then parameter semantics in three compact sentences. No filler; the tolerance parenthetical is dense but earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does supply what the return conveys (a count of unpaired vertices plus the tolerance actually used). Combined with the default-resolution rules, an agent has enough to call it correctly; the only missing piece is confirmation that this is a non-mutating check.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does well for the two non-obvious parameters: `at` (plane position, empty = bounding-box center) and `tolerance` (auto-scaling default). `names` and the enum-constrained `axis` are self-evident and need no elaboration.

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 verb+resource: mirroring vertices across a plane and counting unpaired ones within a tolerance. This clearly distinguishes it from the plain `mirror` sibling, which presumably mutates geometry, though the description never names that sibling to make the contrast 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?

The description explains mechanics but gives no guidance on when to reach for this check versus `mirror`, `check_mesh`, or other validation tools, nor any prerequisite (e.g. must objects be mirrored first, or does this tool do the mirroring itself?). Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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