get_slice_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Without slicing anything' usefully signals a read-only, non-mutating inspection, but it says nothing about error behavior for missing paths, whether a slicer install is required, or how the resolved settings are returned.

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 tight sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the routing caveat follows, which is the right order for an agent scanning for relevance.

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?

All parameters are required-free and fully documented, and the description covers what the tool consumes and how it relates to consult_knowledge. The main remaining gap is the shape of the returned settings, which the absence of an output schema leaves unexplained.

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 all three parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the accepted source types (3MF template vs JSON/config profile) but adds no format, precedence, or fallback detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Inspect') plus resource ('slicer settings') and the two accepted input sources, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. The clause 'without slicing anything' implicitly separates it from slice_stl and slice_with_template, but no sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: when the user asks what a slicing setting should be, call consult_knowledge first. That is real when-to-use guidance with an alternative. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over slicer_info or list_templates, and lists no exclusions.

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