mesh_quality_scorecard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the scoring dimensions and return format but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. It implies a non-destructive analysis, but lacks explicit safe-use context.

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 concise (6 lines), front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear bullet list for dimensions with weights. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return values (per-factor scores, overall score, letter grade) and the four dimensions with weights. It specifies accepted file formats. Missing details include the structure of 'notes' and whether multiple meshes are handled, but overall it provides sufficient context for a single-parameter 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?

The schema lacks a description for the 'file_path' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying supported formats ('.stl, .obj, .glb'), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not detail path requirements (absolute/relative) or file upload prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'Generate a multi-factor quality scorecard for a mesh' and lists the four evaluation dimensions with weights. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_printability' or 'diagnose_mesh' by covering a comprehensive multi-factor assessment.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as single-factor analysis tools or other diagnostics. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information is given.

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