quick_adaptive_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 discloses that it combines analysis and planning, mentions default region behavior, but does not describe the return value format, error conditions, side effects, or performance characteristics. The transparency is moderate.

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 and front-loaded: first sentence states the all-in-one nature, second gives usage context, then well-structured parameter list with non-default values explained. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (a plan, confirmation, etc.). It also omits error handling and prerequisites. For a tool with 7 parameters and a combined function, this leaves gaps for an agent to understand the complete input-output contract.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it provides examples for material (PLA, PETG, ABS), specifies model_height_mm as total height, defaults for nozzle_diameter_mm (0.4), and enumerates mode strategies (balanced, quality_first, etc.). It also explains that regions default to a STANDARD region. This goes beyond the raw schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'All-in-one adaptive slicing: analyze geometry + generate plan.' It explicitly says it combines geometry analysis and plan generation in a single call, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'analyze_model_geometry' and 'generate_adaptive_slicing_plan'.

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 says 'Ideal when you have basic model info and want a quick adaptive plan without multiple tool calls.' This implies appropriate usage (for quick, basic info) and suggests when not to use (when separate analysis or planning is needed). However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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