estimate_mesh_print_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses it's a ballpark estimate, depends on slicer settings, and works directly on mesh files. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens on invalid meshes, or any constraints like file size. The disclaimer about slicer dependence adds some context but not comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 reasonably concise at 6 lines, front-loads the purpose, and uses docstring style. However, the parameter list could be more compact. Every sentence adds value, so it earns a 4.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return value as a dict with estimated time, layer count, and note, which is helpful but lacks detail on key names or types. With 4 parameters and moderate complexity, the description is adequate but not thorough. Missing details like error handling or file format compatibility beyond the listed formats.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only provides minimal docstring-like explanations (e.g., ':param file_path: Path to mesh file.'). These add little beyond parameter names and defaults already in the schema. For example, 'material' parameter is not explained beyond 'Material hint (affects per-layer overhead).' This is insufficient to fully understand the parameters' roles in the estimate.

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 it provides a rough print time estimate from mesh geometry (STL/OBJ/GLB) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool estimate_print_time, which uses slicer profiles. The verb 'estimate' and resource 'mesh print time' are specific and unambiguous.

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 tells when to use this tool (before slicing, directly on mesh files) and contrasts it with estimate_print_time, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives besides that one sibling. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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