retopo.validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description's 'Risk: read' simply mirrors that. It adds no extra behavioral context such as what validation checks, side effects, or output semantics. The 'maturity: L1' and requirement note are generic harness metadata, not tool behavior.

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 extremely short, but brevity here stems from under-specification rather than efficiency. It contains one sentence with no substantive content, so it is not appropriately sized for an agent to use effectively.

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 validation tool with an output schema and two required object locators, the description should explain what is validated and what the result means. It offers none of this, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge. The output schema exists but the description does not hint at its content.

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 only 50%, meaning half the parameters lack descriptions. The tool description provides zero parameter information, failing to compensate for the gaps. It does not explain objectId, sourceObjectId, maxDeviation, or maxPoleValence beyond their names.

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 does not state what the tool does beyond echoing the command name. 'PartMe Blender Harness command `retopo.validate`' is a restatement, not an explanation of the validation function. No verb, resource, or outcome is specified, leaving the agent to guess from the name alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many retopology siblings (e.g., blender_retopo_project, blender_retopo_setup_surface). The only contextual note is a generic harness requirement that applies to all tools, offering no decision support.

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