get-model-structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about what the tool does ('loads the file and returns the parsed scene structure as JSON, using GLTFStructureLoader from gltfjsx') and its intended use case ('complex model debugging'), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines. Each sentence adds clear value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful context about the tool's behavior and use case. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not detail the return format (e.g., JSON structure), which is a minor gap for a debugging tool.

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 100%, with the parameter 'modelPath' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('structure of a GLTF/GLB model file'), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'gltfjsx' by specifying 'For code generation use the gltfx tool.' This provides specific differentiation beyond just the tool name.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for complex model debugging and not implementation') and when to use an alternative ('For code generation use the gltfx tool'). This gives clear context for tool selection versus the sibling tool.

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