mesh_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the exact contents returned (counts, direction-grouped faces, areas, centre world ranges), which matters because no output schema exists.

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, no filler, and the returned content is front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Appropriately sized, though the run-on listing of direction groups slightly hampers scanning.

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, single-parameter info tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the returned fields and when to call it. The only unaddressed element is the object parameter's expected form.

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?

There is one required parameter (object) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description would need to clarify it—and it does not mention the parameter at all. However, "object" is largely self-explanatory in a mesh-editing context, so the gap is modest rather than severe.

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 output: counts of vertices, edges and faces plus faces grouped by direction (+X, -X, +Y, -Y, +Z, -Z, other) with area and world range of centres. This is a concrete verb+resource description that tells an agent exactly what this returns. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like check_mesh or scene_tree, which may also report mesh statistics.

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?

"Read it before you pick faces with `where`" gives a clear when-to-use condition tied to a downstream workflow. It doesn't name an explicit alternative or exclusion (e.g., vs check_mesh or scene_tree), but the context of use is unambiguous.

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