mesh_quality_check

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

With no annotations, the description effectively communicates that the tool performs analysis to detect mesh issues. It lists specific defect types, implying a non-destructive read operation. It could explicitly state that it does not modify the mesh, but the list of issues suggests analysis only.

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, front-loading the main action and then providing use cases. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns after analysis. It also fails to explain the single parameter. While the analysis scope is clear, the lack of output and parameter details leaves it incomplete for execution.

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 the 'object_name' parameter or explain how to use it. The description adds no meaning to the parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on what to provide.

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 it analyzes mesh quality and lists specific issues (non-manifold edges, loose vertices, degenerate faces, duplicate vertices). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_scene or validate tools by focusing on geometry defects.

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 usage context by stating it's essential for 3D printing, game assets, and VRChat avatars. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, missing explicit exclusion guidance.

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