sculpt_analyze_surface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it returns analysis but does not mention whether it modifies the mesh, performance impact, or prerequisites (e.g., object mode). This is insufficient for a tool that may be read-only or destructive.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a bulleted list of analysis types. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., mesh must exist, no mode requirement) and does not address what happens if the mesh name is invalid. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the analysis_type options with brief explanations, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain mesh_name beyond its type, 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 'Analyze mesh surface for sculpting decisions' with a specific verb and resource. It lists distinct analysis types, distinguishing it from sibling sculpt tools like sculpt_brush_stroke or sculpt_remesh.

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 implies usage for pre-sculpting analysis but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparisons to alternatives like mesh_quality_check. It provides context via analysis types but no exclusions.

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