compute_mesh

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, read-only nature). The description does not indicate whether computation mutates any state, requires specific permissions, or modifies the mesh. 'Compute' is ambiguous and could imply creation or modification, making the lack of disclosure a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, which is brief, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. Conciseness is appropriate when it is both short and informative; here it fails to convey essential meaning, making it underspecified rather than concise.

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?

Despite having only one parameter, the description omits critical context: what mesh_ref refers to, whether the operation is read-only, what 'basic statistics' includes, and how it relates to other tools. Even if output schema covers return values, the lack of context about the input and side effects makes the tool description severely incomplete.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, mesh_ref, with no description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so the agent cannot infer what 'mesh_ref' refers to (e.g., an existing mesh ID, a geometry reference, or a path). The description adds no value to the schema.

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 states an action, 'compute mesh', and an outcome, 'return basic mesh statistics'. However, the verb 'compute' is ambiguous—it could mean generating a mesh or analyzing an existing one. This ambiguity is not resolved by the parameter 'mesh_ref', and the tool is not clearly distinguished from siblings like create_mesh or get_mesh_info.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_mesh_info or create_mesh. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without a basis for selecting this tool.

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