show_in_slicer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a UI side effect (opens a window in the user's environment) and that the target window depends on file type, but it says nothing about whether PrusaSlicer must already be running, whether the call blocks, or what happens on a missing/unsupported path.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, the two input categories, and the two destinations. Every clause earns its place with 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the core behavior is covered, but the description omits prerequisites (running instance), failure behavior for invalid paths, and any hint about the result of the call. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 'path' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description is the only source of meaning. It does imply the accepted file kinds (model/3MF or G-code), which is useful, but gives no format, relative/absolute path, or extension guidance.

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 ('Open') and the resources it handles (model/3MF, G-code), plus the distinct destinations (PrusaSlicer window vs G-code viewer). This clearly separates it from siblings like add_model, which load geometry onto a plate rather than open a file in a GUI, though the description never names a sibling to reinforce the distinction.

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?

The description gives real selection context by branching on input type: model/3MF goes to the slicer window, G-code goes to the viewer. It does not state exclusions or point to alternative tools (e.g. when to prefer add_model over opening a file), so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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