extract_model_from_3mf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does a strong job: it explains the ZIP/XML parsing, merging behavior, output as binary STL, and the side effect of opening an interactive 3D stage with automatic mesh decimation. It could still note overwrite behavior and permissions, but it reveals significant behavioral detail beyond the bare operation.

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 a lead sentence, a clarifying note, parameter blocks, returns, and a side-effect paragraph. It is somewhat long but each section contributes useful context. The 'PNG preview is the floor' phrasing is a bit cryptic, but overall the organization helps scanning.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers input formats, multi-object merging, output type, return contents, scenarios for alternative tools, and a notable UI side effect. It lacks error-condition details but is otherwise sufficient for safe invocation.

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 does so by documenting both parameters: file_path with accepted file extensions and output_path with auto-generation semantics. This is meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema, though the auto-generated path naming is not elaborated.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Extract the embedded 3D model from a .3mf or .gcode.3mf file to STL." It clearly defines the tool's scope (standard 3MF and Bambu .gcode.3mf) and distinguishes it from the sibling extract_plate_object, explicitly noting that the sibling should be used for extracting single objects' G-code.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: the note says to use extract_plate_object for single-object G-code extraction and list_plate_objects to discover available objects. It also states that multi-object files are merged into a single STL, which sets clear expectations for when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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