slice_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does unusually well on idempotency: reusing a key returns the saved job even after restart, changed input/profile bytes conflict, and a new key is required for an intentional retry, plus queued jobs re-verify hashes. It omits other mutation-relevant behavior — whether the call blocks for up to timeout_seconds, whether output_directory is created or overwritten, and what files are written — which keeps it from a 5.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the idempotency rules follow in a logical order with no filler. Minor redundancy: "Queued jobs verify input/profile hashes again" restates the conflict rule already given, and the line-broken phrasing is slightly fragmented.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the idempotency contract is well covered. For an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, however, the blocking/timeout behavior and the output_directory write semantics are material gaps an agent would need to call it safely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 8 parameters. It covers plate semantics (0 = all plates), acceptable input formats, the settings/filaments profile payloads, and idempotency_key thoroughly, but export_3mf, timeout_seconds, and output_directory are never mentioned, leaving three parameters entirely undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb (slice) and resource (3MF/STL/STEP inputs) plus the engine and profile inputs it consumes, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It never names its closest sibling, batch_slice, or explains how the two differ, so the reader must infer the single-job vs batch distinction.

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?

"Use a self-contained Orca 3MF or supply complete printer/process/filament JSON; the bridge does not guess printer settings" is a real input precondition, which is useful. But there is no when-to-use-this vs. alternatives guidance at all — no routing to batch_slice, job_status, or job_wait — so usage is only implied.

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