resolve_3mf_ams_slots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: the operation depends on live printer state (openWorld), matches against the actual AMS inventory rather than the file alone, and explicitly disclaims any upload or print start. It does not describe the shape of the returned match data.

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?

Two tight sentences: the core action first, the boundary condition second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most important qualifier (read-only, no print) is placed where it will be read.

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?

For a 7-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it reads and what it compares against. What is missing is what the agent receives back — a per-tray slot resolution/error list — which matters more since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 every parameter is already documented, including host/token/serial defaults, plate_index and the model hint. The description adds only the tray_info_idx concept, which is data inside the 3MF rather than a parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (inspect) and resource (sliced 3MF), plus the exact mechanism it performs: matching tray_info_idx filament requirements against the live AMS inventory. The closing clause 'Does not upload or start a print' draws a hard boundary against the print siblings, so an agent can tell this is a pre-flight check rather than a print action.

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 exclusion ('does not upload or start a print') implicitly tells the agent to use this before/separately from print_3mf or start_print, and the mention of 'live AMS inventory' signals that a connected printer is required. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly or stating the trigger condition (e.g. 'call before printing to verify filament seating').

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