slice_hook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool does not upload or print and that it uses a CLI, which is helpful. It does not mention side effects like file output location, overwrite behavior, or the settings prerequisite for bare STL, so transparency is only partial.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds useful context: slicing scope, output naming, non-upload/non-print behavior, and the bare-STL allowance. There is no wasted text.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, so the description must carry significant weight. It explains the core purpose and one key output pattern, but omits output directory behavior, settings requirements, and the meaning of several parameters, leaving an agent under-equipped for correct invocation.

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 only 20%, and the description adds little about the many parameters. It clarifies that part, variant, and rev shape the output filename, but plate, orient, arrange, filaments, outputDir, and the exact role of settings remain unexplained in the main description.

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 names a specific verb ('Slice'), a specific resource ('STL or mesh-only 3MF'), and an output pattern ('{part}-{variant}-{rev}.gcode.3mf'). It also distinguishes itself from likely siblings by explicitly stating it does not upload or print.

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?

It clearly indicates this tool is for local slicing only and calls out non-upload/non-print behavior, which helps an agent rule it out for upload/print tasks. It also notes that bare STL input is allowed only here, giving a useful scoping cue. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide a direct 'use X instead when...' comparison.

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