Get OrcaSlicer status

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares the read-only nature; the description reinforces it and adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a point-in-time snapshot that reports dirty preset keys and whether a slice is running. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core snapshot contents; the second provides usage guidance. Every clause adds information.

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 zero-argument read-only status tool without an output schema, the description covers the return categories and the call context sufficiently. It could theoretically enumerate exact return keys, but the provided categories give an agent enough to decide when to call it.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description contributes to output semantics by referencing slice_result_valid but does not need to explain parameters.

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 specific noun-plus-scope ('Snapshot of the current OrcaSlicer session') and enumerates the exact contents (app/project info, presets, dirty keys, slice validity, running slice). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_slice_status, get_config, or get_job_status.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to 'Call it first' before slicing/editing and gives three concrete triggers: orienting, discovering drifted settings, and checking slice_result_valid. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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