model_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it parses the file (and thus how expensive it is on large meshes), or what happens on a malformed/unsupported file. The manifold check hints at validation behavior, but the failure mode is undisclosed.

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?

One short sentence-fragment listing the returned metrics, with the primary measure (size) front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the fragment style leaves no room for the context the tool actually needs.

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 and no annotations, so the description is the only documentation for a one-parameter tool, yet it omits path format, supported file types, and error behavior. For a simple inspection tool the metric list covers the return shape but not enough to invoke it confidently.

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 0% for the single required 'path' parameter, and the description only indirectly implies it refers to a model file. It does not state accepted formats (STL/OBJ/3MF), whether relative or absolute paths work, or where paths are resolved from.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool reports for a model file: size in mm, bounding box, facet count, volume in mm3, and a manifold check. That is distinctive against siblings like slice_model or gcode_summary, which operate on different resources. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'computes') but the resource and output set make the purpose unambiguous.

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 call this versus slice_model or preview_gcode, and no prerequisites such as needing an already-loaded or existing file. An agent must infer that this is a pre-slicing inspection step from the metric list alone.

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