inspect_glb

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 substantial work: it discloses the exact return contents and the specific warning conditions (missing normals/UV, oversized or non-power-of-two textures, duplicate node names). It never explicitly confirms the operation is read-only/non-mutating, but the phrasing implies inspection only.

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 output enumeration, then a short rationale sentence. The field list is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it will learn; no filler sentences.

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 2-parameter read-only inspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively serves as the output contract by listing returned data and warning triggers. The remaining gap is the undocumented max_texture parameter.

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% for 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly identifies 'path' ('the file you exported') and says nothing at all about 'max_texture' or its 2048 default, leaving the agent without guidance on a parameter that changes the reported result.

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 and resource ('Read a GLB file without Blender') and enumerates exactly what is extracted: triangles, vertices, materials, textures with sizes, extensions, file size and warnings. The 'without Blender' framing clearly separates it from import_glb and the mesh-inspection 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?

Gives a clear usage context with rationale: 'Run it on the file you exported, because that is what the game loads.' That tells the agent when this tool is the right one, but it names no alternative (check_mesh, mesh_info, check_game_ready) and gives no exclusions.

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