resolve_3mf_ams_slots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the operation is read-only ('Does not upload or start a print') and that it reads live/inventory state, which is meaningful. It omits failure modes (offline printer, missing AMS, unresolvable profile), whether credentials/network are required, and what happens on a slot mismatch.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the exclusion clause last. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description ideally should say what the matching produces (e.g., a per-tray filament mapping or match/unmatch result) and what the agent should do with it. It also leaves the printer/AMS prerequisite unstated. The action and its non-mutating nature are covered, but return semantics are not.

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 all seven parameters (host, serial, token, model hint, plate index, path, nozzle diameter) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format or defaulting detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

The description names a specific action (inspect a sliced 3MF and match its tray_info_idx filament requirements against live AMS inventory), which is a concrete verb+resource pairing that no sibling tool covers. The closing clause 'Does not upload or start a print' draws a boundary against print/upload siblings such as print_3mf and start_print, though it does not name them directly.

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?

Use case is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-print verification step, and the negative scoping ('does not upload or start a print') rules out the obvious alternatives. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, so this stays at the minimum-viable level.

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