inspect_print_file

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

Annotations already carry readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it returns 'versioned file-only evidence' and explicitly disclaims that 'no printer readiness or permission to dispatch is established,' warning the agent not to treat the result as dispatch authority. It doesn't detail rejection cases beyond what the schema's file_path description covers.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return nature, then the dispatch disclaimer. No filler. Slightly dense in the middle sentence but every clause carries meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does only vaguely ('versioned file-only evidence') without indicating the shape of what an agent will receive. Combined with no clear named alternatives for this inspection step among many siblings, it is adequate but leaves gaps.

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%, and each parameter (bed_type, file_path, bambu_model, plate_index, nozzle_diameters) is documented in the schema itself, including rejection rules and enum meaning. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond referencing 'selected plate' and the file/plate scope, so the baseline 3 holds.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) plus a precisely scoped resource: 'an exact private snapshot of a prepared sliced 3MF or textual G-code file and selected plate.' It distinguishes itself from slicing (slice_stl, slice_with_template) and printer-facing siblings by explicitly saying it works 'without contacting a printer' and 'does not auto-slice.'

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?

Implies when the tool applies ('without contacting a printer', 'does not auto-slice') and delineates the boundary with print/slice workflows, giving the agent clear negative conditions. However, it never names a specific alternative tool or the positive condition that selects this over get_slice_settings or list_3mf_plate_objects.

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