analyze_printability

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

With no annotations, the description covers behavioral aspects: it describes the analysis scope, tier-dependent behavior, and parameter effects on warping/thermal checks. It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only analysis tool, this is adequate.

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 structured with a summary paragraph and Args section. It is somewhat verbose but front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'analysis' in both parts), but overall efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (9 params, no output schema), the description explains the analysis performed and return values (score, grade, recommendations). It also covers tier differences. However, it lacks detail on the output structure (e.g., format of recommendations), which would be helpful.

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 0%, so the description provides critical meaning for all 9 parameters. It explains defaults, units, and semantic context (e.g., material ID for warping analysis). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool analyzes a 3D model for FDM printing readiness, specifying analyses (overhang, thin wall, bridging) and output (score, grade, recommendations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like troubleshoot_print_issue or check_printer_material_compatibility.

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 advises passing material and printer_id for better accuracy and explains free vs Pro tier behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use this tool, leaving room for improvement.

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