Check object placement

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

The description reveals it is approximate, lists exclusions (skirt arcs, half-line-width, travel/wipe), and clarifies it uses 'object footprint from size+offset, not the sliced toolpath.' This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and sets clear expectations about accuracy.

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 description is well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second lists return values, final section covers approximations and alternatives. Every sentence adds unique, valuable information without redundancy, remaining compact.

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 read-only analysis tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return types, limitations, and alternative tools. The mention of '[needs M4b]' further adds contextual completeness regarding requirements.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so the description has no parameter meanings to explain. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-param tools, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Estimate whether every object (plus its skirt/brim ring) fits inside the printable area.' It also distinguishes itself from the more accurate get_slice_warnings by calling itself a 'fast first-pass.'

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 guidance is given: 'At ~mm margins the true verdict needs get_slice_warnings - this is a fast first-pass.' This directly tells the user when to use this tool versus the alternative. Also notes 'single-instance objects only' as a limitation.

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