get_mesh_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of refusing meshes above `limit`, which is valuable, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error handling (e.g., what happens if the mesh is not found or the limit is exceeded). It also does not mention if the operation has side effects, though it is implied to be a pure data fetch. This partial disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 very concise, with two short sentences covering purpose and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the crucial limit behavior and alternatives. There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simplicity and the fact that there is no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (raw arrays), when to use it, and the limit restriction. It does not describe the exact structure of the arrays or error scenarios, but for a small data retrieval tool, this is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by stating read-only nature or error behavior, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 already describes both parameters (name and limit) with 100% coverage. The description mentions `limit` in the behavioral context but does not add any new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool provides 'Raw vertex/edge/face arrays for a mesh' and explicitly distinguishes it from get_object and analyze_game_asset, which handle size, topology, and material info. The verb 'get' is implied by the name, and the scope (mesh data) is unambiguous, making it easy for an agent to select this tool over siblings.

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 explicitly says to use this tool only for small meshes when vertex-by-vertex reasoning is needed, and it refuses meshes above `limit`. It also names the exact alternatives (get_object, analyze_game_asset) for other use cases, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with no ambiguity.

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