inspecionar_3mf

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Mostra' (shows) does signal a read-only, non-destructive inspection, which is the key behavioral cue. However, nothing is said about error handling (missing/invalid 3MF file), whether the file is parsed locally or uploaded, or how large projects are handled, so important context is 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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the payload (what gets displayed) is front-loaded immediately after the verb. The colon-list structure makes the returned fields scannable.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned (printer, plates, filaments with color/type/usage). It falls short on the input side (nature of 'arquivo') and on sibling differentiation, which are the two things an agent most needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'arquivo' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not: 'arquivo' is never mentioned, and it is unclear whether it is a file path, a name, or an already-loaded project reference. Only the vague phrase 'do projeto' hints that a project file is involved.

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 specific verb ('Mostra') and resource (inspection of a 3MF project), and enumerates the exact contents returned: original printer, plates, and each filament's color, type, and usage. It does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings like verificar_3mf or listar_3mf, which an agent could easily confuse with an inspection tool.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the neighbouring tools (verificar_3mf, listar_3mf, mapa_de_ilhas) are named as alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the description of what is returned, leaving the agent to guess why it should pick this over verificar_3mf.

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