get_mesh_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, potential errors, or requirements like an active SALOME session. It also leaves 'detailed SMESH info' vague.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant details, making it appropriately concise for a simple retrieval 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?

The presence of an output schema means the description does not need to explain return values, but the overall context is thin. The tool has one parameter with no explanation, no annotations, and no usage guidance. For a straightforward getter, this is minimally adequate but lacks richness.

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%, and the description does not explain what 'mesh_ref' refers to. While the parameter name and tool name imply it is a reference to a mesh, the description adds no explicit meaning. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('mesh counts and detailed SMESH info'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_object_info by focusing on mesh-specific data. Even without explicit comparison, the tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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 like get_object_info or list_study_objects. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions, so the agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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