bridge_geometry

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that output is in millimeters and consists of native mesh vertices/triangles, but omits whether the operation is read-only, permissions required, side effects, or return format.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool description, though brevity contributes to information gaps covered elsewhere.

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?

No output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description should explain returns and behavior more fully. It names data type and unit but lacks project parameter semantics, return structure, and safety profile, leaving the agent with insufficient information to call confidently.

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 0% and the description never mentions the sole required 'project' parameter, leaving its meaning, expected format, and role unexplained. The description adds no semantic value 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?

States a specific verb 'Extract' and resources 'native mesh vertices/triangles', plus the unit 'millimeters'. It is distinguishable from inspection/render siblings by focusing on raw geometry extraction, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus bridge_inspect or bridge_verify, nor when not to use it. Use case is implied by the extraction verb but no alternatives or prerequisites are given.

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