mdpa_quality

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does useful work by defining what counts as inverted (non-positive signed measure) and how measures are computed for quadratic cells, but it never states that the operation is read-only, nor does it note behavior on large meshes or any cost/auth considerations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the dense enumeration of reported metrics is appropriate for a quality-report tool. It reads as a single run-on block with stacked parentheses, but almost every clause carries technical information rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so detailing return contents is largely redundant, while the description omits the two things the schema does not cover: what 'path' points to and how to interpret 'worst'. It is complete on the 'what it computes' axis but gaps remain on usage and parameters.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The mention of 'the ids of the worst cells' and 'the ids with the smallest angle' loosely implies what the 'worst' parameter controls (count of worst items reported), but 'path' is entirely unexplained and the default/meaning of 'worst' is left to inference.

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 states a specific verb (report) and resource (mesh quality) and enumerates exactly what the report contains: counts, measure stats, aspect ratios, angle extremes, and degenerate cells. This differentiates it implicitly from mdpa_validate and mdpa_inspect, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer mdpa_validate or mdpa_inspect, and no prerequisites. The aside that inverted cells 'crash or poison a Kratos run' hints at motivation but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right call.

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