converter_3mf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful traits: it never overwrites existing files and it verifies the result in the slicer. However, it leaves out whether the slicer check launches an external application, what happens on verification failure, and whether the source file is left untouched — meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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 with the main action and default output path front-loaded, then the safety guarantee. The mid-sentence line break is awkward but no content is wasted.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome — where the file lands and that it is validated — which is the information an agent needs to decide and act. The main omission is failure behavior when the slicer check does not pass.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It partially does: 'saida' is covered via the default naming rule and 'mapa' is covered by cross-referencing planejar_conversao, but 'arquivo' (the only required parameter) and the exact shape of the map are never explained.

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?

States a concrete verb and outcome: writes the converted project to the Kobra X, names the default output file pattern (<nome>_KobraX.3mf next to the original), and adds a slicer check. It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like listar_3mf or inspecionar_3mf, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with planejar_conversao or verificar_3mf, which occupy adjacent steps.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention that 'mapa funciona como em planejar_conversao' signals this is the step that follows planning, and 'nunca sobrescreve' hints at a re-run safety consideration. There is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of planejar_conversao or verificar_3mf, nor any prerequisite ordering.

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