PrusaMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns analysis, recommendations, cost estimates, and questions, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what happens if inputs are invalid. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and listing outputs. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating outputs into a list). It avoids waste and is efficient for its complexity.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It outlines the tool's purpose and outputs but lacks details on behavioral aspects and return values. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain return formats more explicitly, but it covers the basics adequately.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Analyse complète d'un modèle 3D avec recommandations' (complete analysis of a 3D model with recommendations). It specifies the verb (analyze) and resource (3D model), and distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_mesh' or 'check_printability' by being comprehensive and serving as an entry point for new prints.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'Idéal comme point d'entrée pour un nouveau print' (ideal as an entry point for a new print). This indicates when to use it (for new prints) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though it implies a broader scope than tools like 'analyze_mesh'.

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