get_stl_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add non-obvious behavior: for 3MF files, build item and component transforms are applied so the reported box matches the slicer's placement. That is a substantive semantic detail an agent could not infer from the schema, though read-only status, failure behavior on a malformed file, and whether the file is opened/locked are left unstated.

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 tight sentences: what it does, then the one surprising behavior (3MF transforms), then the prerequisite. Front-loaded and free of padding; every sentence 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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it names the return fields and the file-type handling caveat, and it supplies the prerequisite. It lacks only error/failure expectations, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already tells the agent what stl_path is, including that it accepts 3MF. The description adds no syntax, path-resolution, or relative-vs-absolute guidance beyond that, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 and resource and enumerates the returned data (bounding box, face count, dimensions), so an agent knows exactly what 'detail' means here. It supports both STL and 3MF, which distinguishes it from 3MF-specific siblings like list_3mf_plate_objects, though it never names an alternative 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?

'Call preflight_check first' gives an explicit ordering constraint relative to a named sibling, which is real routing guidance rather than inference. It stops short of saying when to skip this tool or what to use instead if you only want slicer settings (get_slice_settings/slicer_info), so no exclusions are stated.

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