estimate_support_material

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the algorithm (overhang analysis) but omits details like error handling, file size limits, or permission requirements. The behavior is adequately outlined but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with a concise algorithm explanation. The docstring format (param/returns) adds minor verbosity but remains efficient. Nearly every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description defines the return dict (volume, weight, overhang stats) and explains the estimation process. It is fairly complete for a simple tool, though it could mention prerequisites like manifold geometry.

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 single parameter 'file_path' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), but the description adds critical context: accepted file formats (.stl, .obj, .glb). This compensates for the schema gap, adding meaningful semantics beyond the raw type.

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 support material for a mesh, with a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('support material'). It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the algorithm (analyze overhang triangles, project to build plate).

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 support material estimation from mesh files but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'estimate_supports' or 'estimate_mesh_weight'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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