PrusaMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool uses PrusaSlicer CLI and returns G-code + statistics, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, if it modifies files, error handling, performance characteristics, or authentication needs. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and configuration options. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, the French phrasing might slightly reduce clarity for English-speaking agents, though the content remains well-structured.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and configuration methods but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, and output format beyond 'G-code + statistics'. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about what the tool actually does and returns.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the alternative between using an existing .ini file or generating config from intention, which relates to config_path and goal parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 slices 3D models (STL/3MF files) using PrusaSlicer CLI and returns G-code with statistics. It specifies the action (slice), resource (3D model files), and output (G-code + statistics). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_prusaslicer_config' or 'postprocess_gcode' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 through the mention of alternative configuration methods ('peut utiliser un fichier .ini existant ou générer une config depuis une intention'), suggesting when to use config_path vs. goal parameters. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'generate_prusaslicer_config' or 'print_wizard', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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