Diagnose plate issues

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes safety, so the description is free to add the kind of context annotations cannot: that it collapses several calls into one, and that slice warnings are only as complete as the fork exposes. That caveat is a genuine, non-obvious behavioral limitation an agent would otherwise misread as full coverage.

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?

Three short blocks: trigger plus contents, the aggregation rationale, then caveats and pairing. The trigger is front-loaded in the first clause and no sentence repeats the name, title, or annotation data.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does list the four payload categories plus a explicit caveat about warning completeness. A brief note on the response shape (single object vs. sections) would close the remaining gap.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the schema already has 100% coverage. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies cleanly.

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 names a concrete diagnostic scope — status, objects, bed and skirt/brim settings, and slice warnings — and frames the tool as an aggregator rather than a single resource read. It distinguishes itself from the status/objects/config calls it replaces, though it never restates its own verb/resource pair explicitly (the name and title carry that).

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?

"Start here when a plate won't slice or fit" gives an explicit trigger condition, and it routes to two named siblings with the reason: get_slice_warnings for warning detail and check_placement for a bed-fit estimate. What is missing is the inverse guidance — what to use when the plate slices fine (e.g., describe_plate) — so the exclusion half is left implicit.

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