fab_dfm_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: it produces notes for a human, performs heuristics rather than exact simulation, and has no physical side effects. "Nothing is sliced or printed" goes beyond the read-only annotation by clarifying that no manufacturing artifacts are created. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly written sentences, with the heuristic categories front-loaded and the critical "nothing is sliced or printed" caveat included. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 heuristic tool with two simple parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description gives sufficient context about what the tool analyzes and the nature of its output. It could more explicitly orient the agent within the workflow relative to sibling tools, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the parameters are already minimally documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as how project_id and part_name relate or whether the part must already exist in the project. A 3 is the appropriate baseline since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a clear domain: DFM heuristics for wall thickness, holes, overhang, clearance, and X1C bed size. It does not use a strong verb like "checks" or "validates," but combined with the tool name it is understandable and distinct from slicing/printing operations. It lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling fab_x1c_profile_notes, which could overlap on X1C-related notes.

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 implies usage context: "Notes are for a human reviewing an FDM print" suggests a pre-print design review stage. It also clarifies that nothing is sliced or printed, ruling out fabrication use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fab_export_stl or fab_x1c_profile_notes.

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