texttostl

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

No annotations provided. The description only mentions 'Free' (possibly indicating no cost) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency or data impact. Insufficient for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.

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?

Description explains the purpose but does not specify output format. Without output schema, it's minimally adequate but could be more descriptive.

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?

No parameters in schema; baseline score of 4 for zero parameters. Description adds no parameter info but none needed.

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 verb 'describes' and the resource 'this server's paid tools and pricing', differentiating it from siblings (generate_stl, web_search, web_search_read).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that context implies usage. Lacks exclusion criteria.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the cost, return format (base64 STL file with JSON metadata), and the type of outputs. However, it omits details about whether the operation is blocking, average latency, error handling, or failure modes. The cost and output format are transparent, but more depth would improve trust.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by cost and output format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, cost, and output format. However, it lacks details on parameter relationships, optional settings, and usage context (e.g., which parameters are needed for different output types). The schema descriptions are sparse, so the overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 only 11% (only 'prompt' has a description). The free-text description adds context by listing example outputs (cookie cutter, stamp, jewelry), but 'stamp' is not an option in the 'type' enum, introducing confusion. No explanation is given for the other 8 parameters, leaving the agent to infer from names and constraints alone.

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 that the tool generates a 3D-printable STL from a text prompt for items like cookie cutter, stamp, or jewelry. This differentiates it from sibling tools (about, web_search) which are not 3D-printing related. However, the mention of 'stamp' is not reflected in the type enum (only cookie-cutter and jewelry), causing slight ambiguity.

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 implies usage for creating 3D-printable models from text prompts, and specifies a cost of $0.15. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (though siblings are unrelated), nor does it clarify prerequisites or limitations. Context is provided but not explicit guidance.

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?

No annotations, so description fully responsible. Discloses cost, engines, and return format (JSON with fields). Lacks rate limits or auth info, but adequate for basic use.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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, description specifies return fields. For a 2-param tool, it covers engines and cost. Lacks info on edge cases like no results, but sufficiently complete for typical use.

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?

Description does not add meaning beyond schema for parameters. Schema has no descriptions for 'query' or 'limit'. While description mentions result format, it does not clarify the semantics of the parameters.

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?

Clearly states 'Web search across multiple engines' with specific engines named. Distinguishes from sibling 'web_search_read' by mentioning multiple engines.

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?

Mentions cost ($0.01) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like 'web_search_read'. No exclusions or context provided.

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?

The description discloses cost ($0.02) and return format (JSON with url, title, text per page), which is good for a tool with no annotations. However, it omits rate limits and idempotency information.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format. However, with 0% schema coverage and two parameters, the description should provide more parameter guidance to be complete.

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 0% and the description adds no information about the parameters (query and pages) beyond what the schema provides. For a tool with 0% coverage, the description should clarify usage of each parameter.

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 that the tool does 'Web search plus the full plain-text content of the top results in one call.' This distinguishes it from the sibling 'web_search' which likely only returns search results without content.

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 implies usage when both search results and their content are needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like 'web_search' for simpler cases.

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