Check project settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not argue safety; it adds genuine context by clarifying that no slicing occurs and specifying what is compared and reported (flow per line type against max flow, the speed actually reached when capped). It does not describe auth requirements, performance cost, or the shape of the returned findings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the 'without slicing' qualifier before the detail list and the usage routing. No padding; the only near-waste is the two-word 'Read-only' sentence that duplicates the annotations.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations this is nearly complete: the agent knows what is inspected and when to call it. Since there is no output schema, the description would ideally say a bit more about how findings are returned (list of issues vs summary), which it only hints at by naming the checks.

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% with a single required 'path' parameter whose description already pins it to an absolute Bambu 3MF path, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the contextual fact that the file is read without slicing, not any format or constraint detail 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?

'Check a 3MF project's settings without slicing' gives a specific verb and resource, and the following clause enumerates exactly what is validated (volumetric flow vs filament max, machine speed limits, cooling, per-material pitfalls). It also names slice_model as the sibling that reports the same checks, so the agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

'Use it before slicing a project' gives an explicit trigger condition, and 'slice_model reports the same checks on its result' supplies the alternative and the condition under which this tool is unnecessary. Both when-to-use and the competing option are stated outright.

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