analyze_printability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what the analysis considers (orientation, support angle, nozzle size), what the result means, or that the operation is a pure calculation with no side effects.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: the one sentence is not front-loaded with actionable information and omits everything an agent needs beyond the headline check.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, no enums, no required parameters and zero schema coverage, the description should at minimum name the printer options, describe nozzle/support-angle effects, and indicate the boolean/threshold nature of the answer. None of that is present.

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 the description mentions none of the three parameters. printer (a printer selector with a default of bambu_a1_mini), nozzle_mm and support_angle_deg are completely undocumented in both schema text and description, leaving the agent to guess valid printer values and unit conventions.

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 conveys the check being performed (does the part fit the Bambu A1 / A1 mini build volume), but it is phrased as a question rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never uses the tool's own verb 'analyze'. No sibling tool performs a comparable check, so differentiation is not a problem, but the purpose is stated loosely.

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 prerequisites (e.g. a design must exist first), and no mention of alternatives such as measure or validate. The implied context is 'after creating a design, before exporting', but the agent must infer all of it.

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