resolve_filament_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior by explaining that brand profiles yield manufacturer-exact specs while generic materials yield conservative defaults, and that supplying printer_id raises compatibility warnings with concrete examples. With no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is the right kind of added context, though it never says what the response object actually looks like.

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 critical information (what it does, brand vs generic behavior, when to use it) is front-loaded in the first three paragraphs. The trailing :param block duplicates the schema and adds length without much new meaning, keeping it short of a 5.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both input modes, return semantics at a high level, conditional warnings, and pipeline placement. What it omits — the concrete response structure and behavior on an unresolvable material name — is minor but real.

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 100% and the two param docstrings in the description largely restate the schema text. The one value-add is showing a concrete brand ID example ("bambu_petg_cf") and listing the categories of warnings printer_id can trigger, but that is marginal, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource ("Resolve a material name or brand ID to a unified filament profile") and the two paragraphs that follow spell out exactly what each input form returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the numerous material-related siblings (get_material, get_material_properties, list_materials, find_closest_filaments), so an agent must infer which one to pick.

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?

Gives a clear temporal trigger ("Use this BEFORE slicing or printing") and an explicit downstream chaining instruction ("Pass the result to estimate_before_design"). The only gap is the absence of named alternatives or a when-not-to-use clause, e.g. what to call if you already have a profile ID.

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