Inspect a 3MF file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' adds nothing new. What does add value is the disclosure that output varies by file — full Bambu project vs geometry only, and slicing results only 'if it has any' — which prepares the agent for conditional fields. It stops short of describing failure modes for malformed or non-3MF files.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, its safety profile, and its routing role. The routing instruction is front-loaded after the output summary, and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the summary's contents, and the single-parameter schema is fully documented. An agent knows what it will get, when to call it first, and where to go next.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Absolute path of a .3mf file'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no path format, extension, or permission detail beyond it — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb 'Summarize' plus resource '3MF file', with an enumeration of exactly what is reported (project vs geometry-only, printer/presets, objects and their settings, plates, slicing results). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_3mf_settings and analyze_model, so an agent can pick it 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 first on any 3MF' gives an explicit entry-point rule, and the sentence names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: get_3mf_settings for the full project settings list, analyze_model for geometry. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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