inspect_glb

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it runs standalone without a Blender session and it enumerates the specific warnings it surfaces (missing normals/UV, oversized or non-power-of-two textures, duplicate node names), which tells the agent what failure modes it will detect.

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, zero waste. The capability list is front-loaded and the usage rationale follows immediately, so an agent gets both what and when in a single glance.

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 inspection tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the reported fields thoroughly and annotations carry the safety profile. The only real gap is the undocumented max_texture threshold, which leaves one invocation decision unresolved.

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 neither parameter is explained. 'path' is inferable from context, but 'max_texture' (default 2048) is never mentioned, even though the description alludes to 'oversized' texture warnings — the parameter that presumably sets that threshold is left undefined, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (read) and resource (a GLB file), then enumerates exactly what it reports: triangles, vertices, materials, textures with sizes, extensions, file size, and warnings. The phrase 'without Blender' distinguishes it from in-scene siblings like check_mesh, mesh_info, and import_glb, which operate inside the Blender session.

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?

'Run it on the file you exported, because that is what the game loads' gives clear context for when to reach for this tool — validating the exported artifact. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., check_mesh for in-scene geometry) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear guidance without explicit routing.

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