Assess STL printability by estimating overhang and contact metrics directly from mesh geometry, without slicing.
Estimate simple STL overhang/contact metrics without slicing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| overhang_angle | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 indicates the operation is an estimation ('estimate') and does not involve slicing, which hints at a non-destructive read-only analysis, but it does not state whether the tool modifies anything, what the output format is, or any limitations of the estimation method. Some behavior is implied but key details are missing.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the key differentiator ('without slicing') appears at the end without losing clarity. It is appropriately minimal for a simple tool.
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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify the expected input format for 'model', the role of 'overhang_angle', and the nature of the returned metrics. An agent would need to infer or experiment to use the tool correctly, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.
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% and the description does not mention either parameter. 'model' is not explained (whether it expects a file path, model ID, or raw data), and 'overhang_angle' is not described as a threshold or criterion. The description adds no value beyond the schema's basic type and default, leaving the agent to guess semantics.
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 uses a specific verb 'estimate' and identifies the resource as 'STL overhang/contact metrics,' with the explicit qualifier 'without slicing' that differentiates it from sibling u1_slice. However, 'simple' is vague and does not clarify the scope of the metrics, so it is not a perfect 5.
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 phrase 'without slicing' implies this is a lightweight alternative to u1_slice for quick estimates, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over slicing or other analysis tools like u1_diagnose_model. No exclusions or context are provided, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.