verificar_3mf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool launches an external application (Anycubic Slicer Next) via command line, which is a real side effect. However, it does not say whether the file is modified, whether the app must be installed and how failure is handled, whether the call blocks, or what is returned from the 'checks'.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though brevity here comes at the cost of missing detail rather than through disciplined editing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the verification produces (pass/fail, mismatch list, printer/color/painting details), but it does not. For a tool whose entire value is the result of a check, an agent cannot predict the return shape or how to interpret failures.

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% for the single 'arquivo' parameter, so the description must compensate and it does not. 'Abre o arquivo' only vaguely gestures at the parameter, with no details on whether it is an absolute path, relative path, or must be a .3mf extension. This is a real gap for the only required input.

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 concrete verb+resource pair: it opens the 3MF in Anycubic Slicer Next via CLI and checks printer, colors, and painting. The scope is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'inspecionar_3mf', which sounds like an overlapping inspection function, leaving ambiguity about which one to choose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus 'inspecionar_3mf', 'listar_3mf', or the conversion/painting siblings. The only implied usage is that it is a verification step, and even that requires inference. There are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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