mesh.inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Risk: read' and mentions maturity L3, but provides no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as what data is inspected or any session/scene requirements.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nearly all the text is metadata about risk level and policy requirements rather than useful operational information.

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 tool with 8 parameters, low schema coverage, and no parameter semantics in the description, the definition is functionally inadequate. Even with an output schema present, the agent has no way to know how to select a mesh, what tolerance means, or what result to expect.

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 38% and the main parameters (name, objectId, tolerance, allowOpenSurface) are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no explanation for any parameter, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 only restates the command name (`mesh.inspect`) and labels it as a read operation; it never states what inspecting a mesh entails. It provides no functional verb or resource description that would distinguish it from sibling inspect tools like blender_scene_inspect or blender_uv_inspect.

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 mesh.inspect versus other inspect or read-only tools. The description only mentions that per-request argument checks and session policy apply, which is a policy note, not usage guidance.

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