scad_validate_printability

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by stating the specific checks (watertight, manifold, volume, overhang) and the output format ('PASS/WARN/FAIL verdict + structured report'). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it could include more detail on report structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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. The first sentence lists the specific checks, and the second gives usage timing and output format. Every word earns its place, no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values do not need to be detailed. The description mentions the PASS/WARN/FAIL verdict and structured report, which is sufficient. It also gives the run-after instruction. Annotations cover side effects. The description is complete for the tool's complexity, though the parameter thresholds are left to the schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'volume' and 'overhang' checks, which map to the parameters min_volume_mm3 and max_overhang_deg, but does not explain their exact meaning, units, or default behavior. stl_path is obvious from context. The description provides minimal semantic added value over the raw schema.

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 states a specific action: 'Watertight / manifold / volume / overhang checks on an STL via trimesh.' This clearly identifies what the tool does, the resource it operates on (an STL file), and the specific checks performed. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scad_compile or scad_render_views, which have different purposes.

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 explicit guidance: 'Run after every scad_compile.' This tells the agent when to use this tool in a workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and actionable.

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