check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses non-obvious behavior: results are computed from pieces cached by an earlier build plus per-piece findings for unchanged pieces, while fresh=True rebuilds and rechecks everything. It also notes the passing result ends with pending review steps, each with its call. It stops short of saying whether the tool mutates anything (e.g. rebuilding cached pieces on fresh=True) or what permissions/state it requires.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, but the first sentence runs several dozen words as an unpunctuated enumeration with nested parentheticals, which is hard to parse for an agent extracting the contract. Most content earns its place; the packaging does not.

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 an output schema present, return-shape detail is not needed, and the description still adds that a passing run appends version-specific review steps. For a high-complexity tool it covers caching, remote state, and sibling routing well; the only real hole is the undocumented `variant` parameter.

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 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It fully explains `fresh` ('builds and checks everything again') and `name` is self-evident, but `variant` gets no mention anywhere, leaving one parameter's semantics to guesswork.

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 and resource ('Run the print checks') and then enumerates exactly which checks run: validity, part overlap, overhangs, bridge spans, thin features, horizontal holes, bed-edge fillets, in-place gaps, Wall checks, Probes. It also names the sibling it is not (check_fit) and the condition that makes fit-checking part of this tool instead (Mates() in checks(d)).

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?

Explicit routing guidance: use check_fit for assembly fit 'unless the script lists Mates() in checks(d)', fix every FAIL, report every WARN. It also flags the remote-server precondition (the part is not local until download_part brings it home) and when to pass fresh=True.

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