estimate_adaptive_time_savings

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

The description indicates the tool is read-only by stating it 'Shows' results but does not explicitly state it has no side effects. Given no annotations are provided, the description should clarify that it does not modify data, which is a minor gap.

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 concise with two sentences for purpose and a bullet-like listing of arguments. It avoids unnecessary details and is well-structured for quick reading.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information about what the tool returns (layer count reduction, time savings, percentage). It also links to the required input source, making it complete for its complexity.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description effectively explains both parameters: plan_data is linked to its source function, and uniform_height_mm includes its unit and default value. This adds meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 specific verb 'Compare' and the resource 'adaptive plan time savings vs uniform layer height'. It distinguishes itself from other estimate tools by focusing on the comparison aspect, which is unique among sibling tools like estimate_mesh_print_time.

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 explicitly states that plan_data should come from generate_adaptive_slicing_plan, providing a clear prerequisite. It also documents the default value for uniform_height_mm. However, it does not include when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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