inspect_mesh

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It lists what the tool inspects, implying a read-only operation, and 'repair preview' suggests it does not modify the mesh. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or whether it can fail. Partial disclosure but acceptable given the name and wording.

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 repeats the same information in Korean after the English text, adding redundancy without new value. The first sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the repetition lengthens it unnecessarily, reducing conciseness.

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?

While the purpose and usage context are clear, the complete lack of parameter documentation makes it incomplete. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but an agent cannot correctly call the tool without understanding what to pass in. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention either parameter ('target' or 'decimate_to') at all. An agent has no idea what these parameters mean or how they affect the inspection, which is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 a specific verb ('diagnose') and resource ('mesh') with the explicit context of being called before fracturing. It lists concrete checks (closed, volume, concavity, face count, repair preview) that distinguish it from destructive siblings like 'destroy' and 'explode'.

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 explicitly says 'before fracturing' and 'destroy 전에' (before destroy), giving a clear temporal trigger. It also adds a use case ('when you bring someone else's model'). It does not explicitly exclude any alternative, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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