get_cut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the required capability and the return shape, including that a LightBurn normal cut has exactly one machine block via params.galvo or params.gantry. It does not spell out error behavior, but the key permission and payload context are present.

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 short sentences with no wasted text. The capability requirement, retrieval behavior, and special params structure are each front-loaded and relevant.

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 simple one-index retrieval tool with no output schema, the description gives adequate context: permission requirement, index source, and notable return structure. 'Every field' is somewhat vague and error behavior is unstated, but the core needs are covered.

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 coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter is documented as the flat index from get_cuts. The description repeats that same meaning but adds no extra syntax or edge-case guidance beyond the schema.

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 resource and scope: one cut entry, retrieved by flat index from get_cuts. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the list-oriented sibling get_cuts.

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?

It gives clear context by stating the index comes from get_cuts, and it notes the required 'project' capability. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as get_cuts or update_cut, but the usage context is clear.

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