slice_model

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

Since there are no annotations, the description must carry the full weight of behavioral disclosure. It specifies critical traits like file replacement logic, output contents (time, grams, layer count), and default directory behavior.

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?

The description is extremely dense and functions more like a technical API reference manual dumped into a description field than a concise summary. While it is functional, it sacrifices conciseness for exhaustive 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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description has to be comprehensive. It is highly complete, defining not only inputs and outputs but also default behaviors and constraints across the entire tool's function.

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?

Given the 0% schema description coverage, the description performs exceptionally well. It explains complex mapping logic (e.g., routing overrides, scaling limitations for certain files) that is impossible to convey through simple type definitions.

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 purpose is immediately clear: slicing specific 3D model formats (STL, 3MF, OBJ, STEP) into G-code and project files. It is slightly docked because the description spends the majority of its length detailing parameters rather than strictly defining the 'what' vs. the 'how'.

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?

This description excels at usage guidance. It provides complex conditional logic on parameters—for example, how to select a printer, naming conventions for process/filaments, and the specific functionality of using internal project settings vs. presets.

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