Review a 3D model

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real value: it describes the return shape (overall score, per-category scores, findings), the brief vs full detail behavior, and the fact that an error result is returned when errors exist. The only redundancy is restating 'Read-only', which duplicates readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, and every clause carries information. It is dense — long comma-separated enumerations and a packed final routing sentence — but nothing is genuinely wasteful.

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 5-parameter read-only lint tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: what is checked, what the optional parameters unlock, what is returned, how detail affects output volume, and when errors surface. An agent can call this correctly without opening any other tool.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what archetype actually checks (required parts, pivots, wheel axes, size/unit mistakes, direction) and that archetype accepts a name or an id. That is meaning beyond the schema's bare 'what the model should be, e.g. car, helikopter'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Score a .glb or .gltf') and immediately enumerates what is inspected: flipped faces, open edges, normals, UVs, tangents, textures, node names, budgets. It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming godot_model_build, godot_model_view and godot_model_inspect in the same breath.

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?

Gives explicit routing: build already lints what it builds, use godot_model_view for shape and godot_model_inspect for raw contents. It also states the conditions for the optional parameters (archetype to check it is what it should be, contract to hold it to model.contract.json, max_triangles to flag a heavy model).

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