estimate_print_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that weight requires a material density from a filament profile, that bundled profiles lack filament names, and that a missing key means the slicer could not answer rather than zero. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only estimation 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 well-structured with clear sections, bolded key terms, and a See also pointer. It's a bit long but every sentence adds value—no fluff. The param list is compact and informative.

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 tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key behaviors: slicing vs parsing, material density caveat, and return value semantics. It doesn't describe the exact return structure, but the description says 'Dict with time, filament, and layer estimates' which is sufficient for an agent. It could mention error cases, but overall it's complete enough.

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. It explains each parameter: file_path accepts STL/3MF/OBJ or .gcode, profile is optional slicer profile path, printer_id is for bundled profiles with an example, slicer_path is explicit binary path, and material is used only as density source. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 estimates print time and filament usage by slicing a model and parsing G-code. It distinguishes itself from siblings like estimate_material_cost and slice_and_estimate by explicitly naming them and noting the difference in scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it mentions passing .gcode files directly for already-sliced files, and points to estimate_material_cost for weight/cost from a mesh and slice_and_estimate for fuller analysis with printability scoring. This is clear when/when-not guidance.

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