See a 3D model as text

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that no Godot install or image is needed, what the output contains (per-part letters, sizes, heights, floating/detached-part detection), and restates "Read-only" consistently with readOnlyHint=true. It slightly repeats what the annotations already declare rather than adding new safety/permission context, which keeps it off a 5.

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 first clause front-loads the core purpose and the output description follows; nearly every sentence earns its place, including the routing sentence. It is dense and slightly run-on with the parenthetical examples ("a ladder away from its tree"), which costs a point but not readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned content in detail (three views, parts list with sizes and heights, detached-part detection). For a read-only, 3-parameter inspection tool it gives an agent everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 file, only, and width are already documented with types, enum, bounds and default. The description's "`only` shows one of the views; `width` sets the characters per view (default 48)" essentially mirrors the schema wording, so baseline 3 applies — it does not add format or edge-case semantics the schema lacks.

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: viewing a .glb/.gltf file without Godot or an image, rendered as three letter-drawn views plus a parts list. It fully describes the output shape and explicitly distinguishes itself from godot_screenshot, godot_model_inspect and godot_model_lint by naming what each of those does instead.

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 an explicit triggering condition ("Use it after building to check the shape, proportions and that everything is attached") and routes three alternatives with their distinguishing conditions — rendered picture vs. triangles/materials/textures vs. problem reporting. Nothing about when to pick this tool is left to inference.

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