get_stl_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Detailed information' is undefined — it does not say whether this returns geometry stats, dimensions, triangle counts, or file metadata, nor whether it is a pure read with no side effects. The safety/behavior profile is left entirely implicit.

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 short sentence with zero padding, front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the gaps elsewhere rather than true economy of expression.

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 one fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but 'detailed information' gives the agent no expectation of the return payload for a tool whose entire value is the response shape. It should at least hint at what fields come back.

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% (the single stl_path parameter is documented as 'Path to the STL file'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format, path-style, or validation detail beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ('Get') and resource ('STL file') with the qualifier 'detailed information', so the agent knows this is a metadata/inspection read. However, it does not distinguish itself from neighbors like generate_stl_visualization or slice_stl, which also consume an STL file.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the many other STL-related siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the file must exist on the server). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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