skip_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions using MQTT skip_objects command, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether skipped objects are removed from the bed, if printing continues, or if the action is reversible). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 of 18 words, front-loaded with the action. It is concise but could be slightly longer to include behavioral details. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and modifies printer state, but the description does not explain the result (e.g., success/failure), prerequisites (e.g., must be a running multi-object print), or what happens to skipped objects. More information is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by linking object_ids to list_3mf_plate_objects for finding IDs, which aids correct usage. Other parameters have standard descriptions with defaults.

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 clearly states the action (skip), the resource (object IDs), and the context (during a running multi-object print). It distinguishes itself from sibling print-related tools by specifying the unique use case of skipping objects mid-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 provides context (during a running multi-object print) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like pause_print or cancel_print. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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