extract_model_from_3mf

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the internal structure (3MF as ZIP with XML mesh), the extraction process (parses, extracts all objects, writes binary STL), merging of multiple objects, and the return format including counts and dimensions.

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 summary, note block, and parameter docs. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. The note block effectively highlights alternative tools without cluttering the main description.

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 provides sufficient detail on return values. It addresses file format nuances, merging behavior, and parameter semantics. The evaluation context (0% schema coverage, no output schema) is fully compensated, making the tool complete for selection and 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%, but the description provides explicit :param documentation for both file_path and output_path, explaining their purpose and default behavior (auto-generation for output_path). This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 that the tool extracts an embedded 3D model from .3mf or .gcode.3mf files to STL. It actively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like extract_plate_object and list_plate_objects, making its purpose 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 explains when to use the tool (extracting full model to STL) and when to use alternatives (extract_plate_object for single G-code object). It covers both standard and Bambu files and notes merging behavior, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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