list_slicer_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the tool lists all bundled profiles and returns specific fields, including license tier requirements. It does not mention any edge cases, pagination, or rate limits, but for a list operation, the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 at three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second lists return fields, third gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses no unnecessary words.

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 simple parameterless list tool, the description completely covers what the tool does and what it returns. It explains the output fields (IDs, display names, recommended slicer, license tier) and how to use the results with other tools. No missing information.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). According to guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 lists bundled slicer profiles for supported printers, specifies the returned fields (IDs, display names, recommended slicer, license tier), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning get_slicer_profile for full settings and slice_model for auto-profile selection.

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?

Explicitly says when to use the tool (to list all bundled slicer profiles) and provides guidance on subsequent actions: use with get_slicer_profile for full settings or slice_model with printer_id for auto-profile selection. This clearly differentiates from alternatives.

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