extract_file_metadata

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

The description explicitly states it parses headers 'without re-slicing', which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It also lists the metadata points extracted (time, layer count, etc.). With no annotations, this provides sufficient behavioral context.

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, using bullet points for formats and a note for a sibling tool. Every sentence adds value without repetition. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: supported file types, the nature of the operation (no re-slicing), extracted metadata fields, and a cross-reference to a related tool. It is complete for its simplicity.

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 `file_path` parameter is described in the docstring as 'Path to the print file.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only has a type and title. For a single parameter, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extracts metadata from 3D printing files and lists specific formats (.gcode, .3mf, .stl, .ufp). It distinguishes from the sibling tool `list_plate_objects()` via the note, which helps an agent differentiate use cases.

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 includes a note that for multi-object .gcode.3mf files, also consider using `list_plate_objects()`, which provides alternative tool guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or list other alternatives.

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