resolve_3mf_ams_slots

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only (inspect and match, no upload/print), which discloses its non-destructive nature. It does not mention side effects, but the stated behavior implies no modifications. This is clear and transparent.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value: 'Inspect a sliced 3MF and match its tray_info_idx filament requirements against the live AMS inventory. Does not upload or start a print.' No redundancy.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits what the matching result looks like (e.g., slots assigned, errors, success status). While the matching logic is implied, the return value is not described, making it less complete for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. It does not clarify the role of parameters like 'bambu_model' or 'plate_index' in the matching process.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('sliced 3MF'), clearly stating the action of matching filament requirements against AMS inventory. It explicitly distinguishes itself from upload or print actions, differentiating it from siblings like 'print_3mf' and 'start_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?

The description implies usage context: inspecting a 3MF for filament compatibility without initiating a print. It clearly states what the tool does not do ('Does not upload or start a print'), providing a when-not guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for related actions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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