generate_adaptive_slicing_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the operation but does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, state changes, or preconditions. The agent cannot infer if this tool is safe to call without additional 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 with a clear summary followed by parameter details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the parameter list could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points) to improve readability.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and parameters, but it does not describe the output format (the generated plan structure) or any prerequisites (e.g., must call analyze_model_geometry first). Given the lack of an output schema, this leaves the agent with gaps in understanding the full context.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds detailed meaning for all parameters. For example, 'regions' is described as a list of dicts from analyze_model_geometry with specific keys, and 'mode' lists the four allowed values. This provides essential context beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 generates a per-layer adaptive slicing plan with variable heights, speeds, and cooling. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'quick_adaptive_plan' and 'estimate_adaptive_time_savings' by specifying the output is a per-layer plan based on geometry regions and material.

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 context by mentioning geometry regions and material constraints, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'quick_adaptive_plan' or when it is appropriate. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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