slice_layers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the output is a text grid with coordinate-labelled rows/columns and a legend mapping symbols to palette index and material, which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core action and output shape are front-loaded, and the legend/coordinate detail follows as supporting information. Every clause 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?

For a read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent receives (grid, coordinates, legend). The only real gap is how this output relates to the other inspection siblings, and there is no mention of the 1-8 position limit, though the schema covers that.

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 100%, and the schema's axis description is richer than anything in the tool description (orientation of x/y/z views). The description adds only the notion of 'model-frame voxel coordinates' for the layer positions. This is a baseline 3: the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (print) and resource (layers of the model) and specifies the output form (text grids, one symbol per voxel, '.' = empty). It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with plausible siblings such as 'preview' or 'inspect', so an agent gets no explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like 'preview', 'inspect' and 'export_model' in the same toolset, an agent is left to infer when slicing layers is preferable to those alternatives; the description offers no conditions, exclusions or named replacements.

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