Get Mesh

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format (triangles and quads), default caps (50,000), and how to override. Implies read-only operation. No contradictions.

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?

Extremely concise and well-structured. First sentence states core purpose, followed by necessary details (conversion requirement, storage format, caps). Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 read tool returning mesh data, the description covers all essential aspects: input requirements, output format, limitations, and optional extras. No output schema exists, but the description compensates sufficiently.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds significant meaning: explains the geometric representation, cap limits, and how to override. It also hints at the include parameter details (normals, selections) beyond 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 clearly states it reads points and polygons from editable objects, and distinguishes from siblings like set_mesh and modeling_command. It specifies the object types (PointObject, PolygonObject, SplineObject) and the need to convert primitives.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (for editable objects) and when not (primitives must be converted first via modeling_command make_editable). Provides alternative command for conversion, giving clear guidance.

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