poly_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying exactly which data is returned (counts, subobjectLevel, material ID range), consistent with the read-only nature. No contradiction, but no additional behavioral depth beyond the returned fields.

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?

Compact bilingual description with no wasted words. The core data-returned information is front-loaded ahead of the usage note. Could arguably merge the usage note more tightly, but it's efficient overall.

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?

For a read-only info tool with a single optional parameter and full schema coverage, this is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what data comes back and when to call it. No output schema exists, but the returned fields are enumerated in the description, mitigating that gap.

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% — the single 'objects' parameter is fully documented with its default behavior ('omit to use the current selection') in the schema itself. The description does not add parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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+resource: returns vertex/edge/face counts, subobjectLevel, and material ID range for a polygon object. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like poly_get_stats, poly_get_verts, and poly_get_faces, which are lower-level data fetchers.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it to confirm the state of an object before editing' (用于建模前确认对象状态), giving a clear when-to-use context. However, it doesn't name specific alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, though the info-gathering purpose is well implied.

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