poly_get_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds which statistics are computed, which is mildly informative, but it does not reveal additional behavioral traits such as error conditions, performance expectations, or what happens with non-polygon objects.

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 compact, front-loads the key output values, and uses a bilingual format without excess elaboration. Each sentence communicates the same essential information in its target language, and there is no filler or repetition beyond the intentional localization.

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 low complexity, the optional parameter, and read-only annotations, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the parameter behavior, and the default selection fallback. No output schema exists, but the listed return values are specific enough for an agent to understand 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the sole optional 'objects' parameter, including the note about falling back to the current selection. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('polygon statistics') and enumerates exactly which statistics are included: vertex/edge/face counts, material ID range, and total polygon count. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on individual vertices, faces, or edges rather than aggregate stats.

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 invocation context: pass a list of object names, or omit the parameter to use the current selection. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for related polygon operations, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance, but the usage scope is unambiguous.

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