model_mesh

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. Description adds constraints: refuses collision with input (safety check) and writes only one output file. It also mentions tolerances are echoed in report. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences covering all critical aspects: action, inputs, outputs, constraints, and tolerances. No wasted words.

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?

Covers input formats, output formats, tolerances, and collision constraint. Lacks explicit description of the report output (echoed but not defined) and error handling, but is sufficient for a simple file conversion tool with no output schema.

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 has 0% parameter descriptions. Description compensates by defining linear_tolerance_mm and angular_tolerance_deg with units, implying path/out_path are file paths, and clarifying output format determined by suffix. Could be more explicit about input/output roles.

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?

Description specifies the exact verb (Tessellate), source (B-rep models: STEP/BREP/IGES), and output (mesh files: STL, GLB, GLTF, 3MF by suffix). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like model_inspect or model_validate which have different purposes.

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?

Clearly implies use when converting a B-rep model to a mesh at given tolerances. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that context is clear.

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