hollow_mesh_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains the shell generation algorithm, the material savings report, the default output filename pattern, and the inline 3D stage side effect including automatic decimation of oversized meshes and the fallback behavior for hosts that don't render MCP Apps panels. This is substantial behavioral disclosure, though it could go further by noting error conditions or non-destructive behavior.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with a purpose statement, followed by mechanism details and a parameter docstring. The INLINE 3D STAGE paragraph is long but each sentence earns its place, explaining the interactive viewer, decimation behavior, and cross-host fallback. It could be trimmed slightly, but there is little waste overall.

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 moderate-complexity tool with no output schema or annotations, this description covers all the bases: purpose, generation mechanics, parameter semantics, return value shape, and notable side effects (3D stage, decimation). It could be improved by enumerating the specific keys returned in the stats dict, but overall it is quite complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the embedded docstring documents all three parameters with meaningful semantics: file_path (path to STL), wall_thickness_mm (units and default), and output_path (default naming convention). It also documents the return value. This fully compensates for the sparse schema, though a more structured presentation in the schema itself would make it flawless.

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 first sentence, 'Create a hollow version of a mesh to save material,' is a specific verb+resource+benefit statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from the many other mesh operations in the sibling list (repair_mesh, merge_stl, scale_mesh_to_fit, etc.). The rest of the intro reinforces the unique value proposition of offset shells and material savings.

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 phrase 'to save material' implies when to use this tool, and the mention of reporting estimated material savings provides context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or any named alternative tools (e.g., 'for simple scaling use X'). Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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