make_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It transparently explains that the tool creates a project with parts arranged side by side, intended for visual validation in Cura. It does not describe edge cases or potential side effects, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 two sentences: first states the action, second provides usage context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, very concise, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (though not provided), the description adequately explains what the tool does and how the output is used. It differentiates from sibling tools like cura_slice and cura_arrange by specifying visual validation vs gcode. It is mostly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are already detailed. The tool description adds context: parts are placed side by side and the output is a project for visual check. This enriches understanding of the parameters' purpose beyond the schema.

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 creates a Cura project (.3mf) with parts placed side by side on the build plate. It contrasts with gcode output, distinguishing it from slicing tools like 'cura_slice' and 'slice'. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says the output should be opened in Cura for visual validation, implying that this tool is for preview not final slicing. It contrasts with gcode, providing context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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