list_3mf_plate_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does imply two useful constraints — the operation is a read ('List') and the source file must already be sliced ('sliced 3MF plate') — but it says nothing about behavior on an unsliced file, an out-of-range plate_index, or what the returned entries look like beyond 'IDs'.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the downstream usage immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it returns and how to consume it. Only minor gaps remain (whether names accompany IDs, ordering, or behavior on invalid plates).

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 coverage is 100%: both three_mf_path and plate_index (0-based, default 0) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the 'plate' concept and adds no format or index semantics beyond that, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('List') plus a precise resource ('object IDs from a sliced 3MF plate'), which is distinct from sibling tools like get_stl_info (STL metadata) and slice_stl (the slicer itself). An agent can identify what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Use these IDs with slice_stl's skip_objects,' which establishes the intended workflow position before a slice call. It doesn't state exclusions or what to do if the file isn't sliced, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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