retopologize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by stating the operation is async and requires polling with 'task_status', which is crucial for understanding execution flow. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to the original model, leaving behavioral traits partially covered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential behavioral context in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (async operation with 3 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, output types, and async nature, but could improve by addressing prerequisites or error scenarios, though the output schema mitigates some gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying 'originalTaskId' refers to a model to retopologize and mentioning output types related to the 'quad' parameter, but it does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples for parameters like 'targetFaces'.

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 specific action ('Create a lowpoly version') and resource ('a generated 3D model'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'convert_format' or 'stylize' by focusing on mesh simplification. It also specifies the output types ('quad mesh or triangle output'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 provides clear context by stating this is an async operation and directing users to 'use task_status to poll progress', which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'convert_format' or 'stylize', nor does it outline any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some guidance gaps.

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