analyze_printability

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the analysis performed and return types (score, grade, recommendations) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. It lacks explicit behavioral details like file access requirements or limitations.

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 well-structured with a clear header, a concise paragraph of analyses, and a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, though the docstring format is slightly verbose for a tool description. Could be slightly more compact.

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 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main analysis types and return values but lacks details on ranges, defaults beyond those in schema, and specifics about 'actionable recommendations'. It is adequate but not fully exhaustive.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' block with detailed explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'nozzle_diameter: Printer nozzle diameter in mm (default 0.4)'), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates.

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's purpose: 'Analyze a 3D model for FDM printing readiness.' It lists specific analyses (overhang, thin wall, bridging, etc.) that differentiate it from sibling tools like analyze_mesh_geometry or analyze_print_file, which may not focus on FDM-specific metrics.

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 for FDM printing readiness checks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like analyze_mesh_geometry. No exclusions or when-not guidance are provided, though the context is clear.

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