PartPacket — 3D printing quotes

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that files are forwarded to external providers and retained privately for seven days — meaningful side-effect and data-retention context for an open-world upload. It stops short of describing estimate latency, failure modes, or what happens to rejected files.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then the boundary disclaimer. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema the description should hint at the return (it says 'live manufacturing estimates'), and it covers retention and payment scope. Slight gaps remain around estimate delivery/timing and error cases, but an agent has enough to call 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?

Schema coverage is 57%, with process, quantity, and file_name undocumented in the schema; the description partially compensates by fixing the accepted format and units (STL, millimeters) and scoping which process value is live. Material/color/countryCode semantics are already carried by the schema, so this is a solid but not complete supplement.

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 ('Upload a part and obtain live manufacturing estimates') and adds a hard scope limit ('Only FDM STL in millimeters is currently live'). It doesn't name a sibling like get_quote, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit, but the 'Does not order or pay' clause does separate it from the ordering/review 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 gives a when-it-works constraint (FDM STL, millimeters only, live estimates) and a when-not (does not order or pay), which implies where request_order_review takes over. However, it never mentions get_quote, list_providers, or the preconditions for calling this versus re-reading an existing quote.

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

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 one genuine behavioral detail — that access is gated by a private quote access token — but says nothing about failure modes, token scope, or what is returned.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loaded with the verb and resource. Efficient, though minimal enough that it under-delivers rather than being overly dense.

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 two-required-param read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this is borderline adequate. The lack of any parameter format detail and no error/not-found behavior leaves meaningful gaps at 0% schema coverage.

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% and neither parameter has a description, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that quoteAccessToken is a private access token, which helps for one parameter, but 'id' is left completely unexplained (quote ID? format? source?).

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 (Retrieve) and resource (a saved quote), making it immediately distinguishable from create_quote and the other siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast scope, but the read intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite framing beyond the mention of a token, and no indication of when another tool should be preferred. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and operation type.

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

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 useful context by naming what is returned (providers, supported files, connection status), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what 'connection status' values mean.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary object (connected fabrication providers) leads and the secondary returned fields trail.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so at a high level (providers, supported files, connection status). Combined with no parameters and read-only annotations, this is nearly complete, lacking only detail on status values or list ordering.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a zero-parameter schema is 4.

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 (List) and resource (connected fabrication providers), plus the fields surfaced: supported files and connection status. It is clearly a different domain from the sibling quote/order tools, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent can infer it should call this to discover available providers before creating a quote, but the description offers no when-to-use clause, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g., how to get details for one provider).

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description adds substantive context beyond that — it discloses the auth requirement, that the call never places a provider order or takes payment (bounding the side effect), and an availability precondition. It does not cover idempotency, whether the underlying quote is mutated, or what notification is emitted, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Four short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; the constraints follow in priority order. Minor wording awkwardness ('quoting access token' versus the quoteAccessToken property name) is the only blemish.

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 exists, so the description needn't explain returns, and it does cover auth, side-effect scope, and availability. Still, for a 5-parameter mutation it omits what the notes field does and how quoteRequestId versus quoteId are used, leaving an incomplete picture 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?

With 5 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, yet it only assigns meaning to two of them (access token, contact email). quoteRequestId, quoteId, and notes are entirely undocumented, and the distinction between quoteRequestId and quoteId is never explained.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Request human review of a saved quote,' which an agent can distinguish from create_quote (creates), get_quote (reads), and list_providers (lists). It does not name a sibling to route against, so it falls short of the 5 bar, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

'Requires quoting access token and contact email' and 'Unavailable until review notifications are connected' give prerequisites and an availability gate, which is real usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of-X guidance (e.g., versus get_quote or create_quote), leaving the choice to inference.

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