check_mesh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists what it checks but does not disclose whether it modifies anything, what it returns (report, log, etc.), or any side effects. The term '体检' implies a read-only diagnostic, but this is not explicit.

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 very concise, listing checks in a single line, which is efficient. However, it lacks any structure for parameter or usage information, and the flat list format doesn't help an agent parse the tool's interface.

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 tool with a required parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter, the return value, or the usage context. An agent would have to guess the meaning of 'name' and the expected result.

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?

The single required parameter 'name' is not described at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'name' refers to (object name? mesh name?). An agent cannot reliably know what to pass.

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 tool checks mesh attributes: vertices/edges/faces, triangle/quad/ngon, non-manifold edges, loose points, duplicate vertices. It uses a specific verb (check) and resource (mesh), and the listed checks distinguish it from siblings like mesh_cleanup which would fix issues. However, it doesn't explicitly state the output format.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mesh_cleanup. It's implied that it's for diagnosing mesh issues before cleanup, but this is not stated. The description lacks any mention of recommended usage context or exclusions.

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