get_mesh_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the list of returned attributes, such as what happens if the object is not a mesh or whether it queries the active object. It is consistent but not enriching.

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 lists all relevant output fields without extraneous words. Every part adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the main attributes. However, it lacks context about error cases (e.g., non-mesh object) or whether the operation is limited to the active object, leaving minor gaps for a simple getter.

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 single parameter 'object' has no schema description (coverage 0%), and the description does not explain what value to pass (e.g., object name). The parameter name alone is somewhat self-explanatory, but the agent receives no explicit guidance, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the action (Get) and resource (mesh info), and enumerates the specific data fields returned (vertex/edge/face count, UV maps, vertex groups, has_custom_normals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_object_info and get_physics_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 implies its usage for retrieving mesh-specific attributes, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context signals show a clear mesh-related niche, but the guidance is only implicit.

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