skip_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the use of the MQTT skip_objects command, which adds technical context. However, it does not describe side effects, prerequisites (e.g., must be a multi-object print currently running), or the reversibility of the skip action.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose and method without unnecessary words. Every clause serves a purpose: verb, resource, context, and implementation detail.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides essential context: the action, the target, the mechanism (MQTT command), and how to source object IDs. It is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly, though a brief mention of return/outcome would be helpful.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%. The description adds significant value for the 'object_ids' parameter by instructing the agent to use 'list_3mf_plate_objects' on the sliced 3MF to find valid IDs, which is not apparent from the schema alone. Other parameters (host, serial, token) are standard defaults and need no further explanation.

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 (skip), the resource (specific object IDs), and the context (during a running multi-object print). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_print or pause_print by targeting individual objects during an active print.

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 is for skipping objects during a running multi-object print, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative approaches. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on exclusion criteria or comparison with siblings.

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