get_slice_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states that no slicing occurs, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not discuss file access requirements, potential errors, or the format of returned settings.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that delivers the core purpose without extraneous detail. Every part contributes to understanding.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely adequate but lacks information about what the returned settings look like. Users may need to know the structure or format of the output.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new meaning. The description merely restates the schema's explanation of template_name resolving source_path.

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 action ('inspect'), the resource ('slicer settings from a saved 3MF template or JSON/config profile'), and explicitly distinguishes it from slicing operations by noting 'without slicing anything'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like slice_stl and slice_with_template.

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 the tool should be used when the goal is to inspect settings without slicing, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. For instance, it could note that slice_with_template is appropriate when slicing is also desired.

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