resolve_filament_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: it describes that brand profiles return exact specs, generic return defaults, and that providing printer_id triggers compatibility checks and warnings. It does not mention side effects (none expected), and there is no contradiction with annotations. The behavior is well-explained.

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 but not terse, with a clear first-line summary followed by structured parameter explanations. It uses reStructuredText style for parameters, making it easy to parse. Every sentence adds value, and there is no 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 tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job covering purpose, parameters, usage, and return behavior (exact vs default specs, warnings). It mentions specific return fields for brand profiles (density, temps, etc.) and compatibility warnings. It could be slightly improved by noting the return type or structure, but it is largely complete.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail: 'material_or_brand' is described with examples ('PLA', 'bambu_petg_cf'), and 'printer_id' is explained as optional for compatibility. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles and types.

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 resolves a material name or brand ID to a unified filament profile, with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes between generic and brand profiles, and the purpose is unambiguous. Sibling tools like 'get_brand_filament_profile' or 'find_material_match' have different scopes, so this tool's distinct role is clear.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (BEFORE slicing or printing) and suggests passing the result to 'estimate_before_design'. It also explains the two input types (generic vs brand) and the optional printer_id for compatibility checks. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternative tools, though the context provides reasonable guidance.

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