preview_plate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that the tool is non-destructive ('Does not create a job'), which is good. However, it does not disclose whether reading queue items or printer status has any side effects, nor any rate limits or permissions required.

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 short and to the point at 20 words. The first sentence clearly states the action, and the second adds the important behavioral caveat. It could be considered slightly terse, but every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (4 params, no output schema, and 11 sibling tools), the description provides enough to distinguish this tool from others like 'slice_and_queue', 'approve_and_queue', and 'reject_queue_item'. It lacks an explicit return description, but given the absence of an output schema, describing the return values would help even more.

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 50%, so the description adds value for the 'queue_item_ids' (IDs from list_school_queues) and 'serial_number' (needed when multiple printers). The description mentions the purpose of queue items and the printer but does not explain 'brim' or 'gap_mm' beyond what the schema provides (boolean and number). It provides some additional context but does not fully compensate for the 50% coverage.

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 it measures STLs and packs them onto a build plate, returning fit count, layout, and overflow. It is distinguished from siblings like 'generate_model', 'upload_model', 'slice_and_queue', and 'approve_and_queue' which are clearly different actions. The verb 'Measure... and pack' plus the specific resources (student queue STLs, school printer build plate) provide high precision.

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 explains the tool's purpose (previewing fit/layout before committing) and explicitly states 'Does not create a job,' which helps an agent decide to use this before 'approve_and_queue' or 'slice_and_queue'. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks.

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