report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that output is a full Markdown report, but says nothing about whether the tool reads or mutates the mesh, what 'fidelity' means, whether it performs primitive fitting, or what permissions/costs are involved.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so it is concise. But the terseness borders on under-specification: one short sentence does not structure enough information for a five-parameter report tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a tool with five undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description omits critical context: report contents, tolerance behavior, primitive inclusion flags, and relationship to siblings.

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% across five parameters. The description only implicitly suggests 'input_path' is a mesh via 'this mesh'; it gives no meaning for 'tol', 'cones', 'spheres', or 'cylinders', so an agent cannot infer how to use the geometric filtering options.

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 names a 'Markdown fidelity report' tied to mesh conversion, so the output format and general topic are clear. However, it does not say what the report actually contains or how it differs from the sibling 'analyze' tool, leaving the purpose only loosely defined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus 'analyze', 'convert', 'to_openscad', or 'to_cadquery'. The phrase 'for converting this mesh' hints it follows a conversion, but no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

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