mesh_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the description discloses default fallback behavior for omitted arguments and the kinds of information returned, but it does not state permissions, side effects, or whether it can alter the current model/selection.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, then cleanly separated into Args and Returns sections. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter meanings, defaults, and return categories. It leaves some context implicit, such as how to obtain valid mesh/component/model names and how it relates to mesh_list, but remains adequate for correct invocation.

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%, so the prose Args block is the only source of parameter meaning. It documents all three parameters with their roles and defaults, though it does not specify the expected tag format or how to discover valid names.

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 ('Get') and resource ('mesh information'), and mentions the stable Java tag, so the basic operation is understandable. It does not distinguish itself from sibling mesh_list or clarify what specific mesh information is returned beyond the general phrase, so it is not a 5.

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?

Provides only parameter defaults and no guidance on when to use this tool versus mesh_list or other mesh-related siblings. It does not state prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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