analyze_print_waste

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares read-only behavior, states that ambiguous purge data stays unknown, and warns that approximate purge commands never yield precise waste totals or percentages. It omits error behavior (bad path, out-of-range plate_index) and does not describe the shape of the returned breakdown.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary capability, followed by accuracy caveats and then negative scope. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety profile, and data-accuracy limits. The main residual gap is the return shape, which nothing else in the definition supplies.

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 both 'path' and 'plate_index' are already documented, including the zero-based 3MF convention and the G-code-only-accepts-0 rule. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: a 'per-plate role/material breakdown from sliced Bambu G-code or 3MF,' which tells an agent exactly what comes back. The closing negative scope ('Never slices or controls a printer') separates it from slice_stl and printer-control siblings, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is clear the tool consumes already-sliced artifacts, and the 'never slices' clause excludes misuse on unsliced models. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over estimate_print_cost or compare_slice_scenarios, and no prerequisite checklist.

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