import_glb

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a return-side trait ('list the new objects with their world sizes'), which tells the agent the call adds objects and reports their scale. However it omits whether import replaces or appends to the scene, error behavior for malformed files, and unit/scale handling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: action first, artifact type second, result last. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter import tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and roughly what is returned. It is still missing path-format guidance and whether the import mutates the existing scene, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 'path' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. Saying 'GLB or glTF file' hints that path targets a file, but it never states whether the path is absolute or relative, accepted extensions, or how it resolves, leaving the one required parameter underspecified.

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 (import) and resource (GLB or glTF file), and the verb clearly separates it from export_glb and inspect_glb among the siblings. It also notes the outcome of listing new objects, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema, though it never explicitly names the contrasting siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when bringing an external GLB/glTF asset into the scene, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over inspect_glb, nor any prerequisites (e.g. file must exist on disk). No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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