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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a profile with justifications, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, how the profile is returned (e.g., format, structure), or any limitations like rate limits or computational costs. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the main purpose in the first sentence and listing key parameters in the second. It avoids unnecessary details, but could be slightly improved by structuring the parameter list more clearly (e.g., using bullet points or commas). Overall, it's efficient with zero waste.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and inputs but lacks details on output format, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at what the generated profile includes, but it only mentions 'justification' vaguely. This leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent on what to expect.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the parameters (intent, nozzle, material, optional mesh analysis) but doesn't provide additional context like examples of 'justification' outputs or how parameters interact. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Génère un profil d'impression complet avec justification pour chaque paramètre' (Generates a complete printing profile with justification for each parameter). It specifies the verb 'génère' (generates) and resource 'profil d'impression' (printing profile), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_prusaslicer_config' or 'print_wizard', which may have overlapping functions in the 3D printing context.

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 by listing input factors: 'Prend en compte l'intention (prototype rapide, beau rendu, solide...), la buse, le matériau, et optionnellement une analyse mesh' (Takes into account intent, nozzle, material, and optionally mesh analysis). This suggests when to use it based on these parameters, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'generate_prusaslicer_config' or 'slice_prusaslicer', nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites.

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